an interesting new thought

[richpats]

I'd rather be defending his accomplishments than have no accomplishments to defend (which is where all Pats fans were in the pre-Belichick era. If you'd been a fan at any point in the 20th century, you might actually understand that).

Again with the attacks. I've been a fan since '94. Deal with it.

 

[richpats]

You're still foolish to expect everyone to bow to Goodell on this and stop defending BB.


Ty Cobb, among so many others, says "hello". Players are almost never kept out of the Hall(s) when they are deserving because of possible 'character issues', and that's more true in football than in baseball because of the requirements to get in.

Goodell's interpretation is correct. I know we villify the guy for blowing this out of proportion but his ruling is correct. And no, I shouldn't expect anyone here to agree with me.

And Belichick has always had "character issues" but he was still respected as a great coach. Now people call him a "cheater" and that goes beyond character, they question his professional integrity.

 

[Hardboiled]

Finger pointing is for the weak. If a cop pulled me over for going 56 in a 55, I could complain that "everyone does it", "I'm being singled out" and "it's not a big advantage" - but when it comes down to it, did I break the rules or not?

You did. But if 100 people do the same thing everyday and you are the only person stopped there are legal issues regarding how fairly a law is enforced. So you may not have broken a rule, as the there is no rule because the rule was never properly enforced.

In union/management personal issues, it comes up all the time. You can't discipline an employee for something everyone does, even if it is against rules/contract. Let's say an employed is disciplined for often coming in late, the union sits down and the asks the supervisor if anyone else has been disciplined. Turns out lot of people come in late and never get written up. Bing. Employee off the hook. Turns out there is no rule about coming in late because everyone does it. Ever get a staff email "Start doing what you were supposed to be doing. We mean it this time."?

 

[Deus Irae]

Goodell's interpretation is correct. I know we villify the guy for blowing this out of proportion but his ruling is correct. And no, I shouldn't expect anyone here to agree with me.

That's right, you shouldn't. Because you're wrong. Goodell's interpretation is just his interpretation.

 

[richpats]

That's right, you shouldn't. Because you're wrong. Goodell's interpretation is just his interpretation.

So if Belichick's interpretation is correct, in your opinion, how did Goodell "misinterpret"?

 

[Deus Irae]

So if Belichick's interpretation is correct, in your opinion, how did Goodell "misinterpret"?

I didn't claim either interpretation to be "right" or "correct". You claimed Goodell's to be "correct". You're wrong. It is the interpretation that will be used going forward, so "correct" doesn't matter. However, your siding with Goodell doesn't make you right any more than it makes him right.

 

[BradyFTW!]

The problem is this, richpats: you tried to speak for the fans, yet what you said wasn't even close to our consensus, as evidenced by our reaction. I pretty adamantly disagree with your take on the situation, but whatever; you're welcome to it, as long as you don't claim to speak for me and other fans, as well.

I am not embarassed by Bill Belichick. I am pretty certain, in fact, that, even with the recent negativity, Belichick is still, by far, the best thing to ever happen to the Patriots. Given that, I am most definitely not going to throw him under the bus the first chance I get. He taped, he got caught, and he was punished. It certainly was dumb of him, since he could have legally collected the same information simply by putting the cameraman in the stands instead of on the sideline. Oh well.

My stance on the Specter investigation is that sure, I actually welcome it, provided that every team in the league is investigated. If that were to happen, maybe people like you would realize that this happens all the time, and, like your previous analogy said, has a lot more in common with going 56 in a 55 than it does with, say, grand theft auto.

 

[richpats]

The problem is this, richpats: you tried to speak for the fans, yet what you said wasn't even close to our consensus, as evidenced by our reaction. I pretty adamantly disagree with your take on the situation, but whatever; you're welcome to it, as long as you don't claim to speak for me and other fans, as well.

I am not embarassed by Bill Belichick. I am pretty certain, in fact, that, even with the recent negativity, Belichick is still, by far, the best thing to ever happen to the Patriots. Given that, I am most definitely not going to throw him under the bus the first chance I get. He taped, he got caught, and he was punished. It certainly was dumb of him, since he could have legally collected the same information simply by putting the cameraman in the stands instead of on the sideline. Oh well.

My stance on the Specter investigation is that sure, I actually welcome it, provided that every team in the league is investigated. If that were to happen, maybe people like you would realize that this happens all the time, and, like your previous analogy said, has a lot more in common with going 56 in a 55 than it does with, say, grand theft auto.

What is curious, is that I don't disagree with anything you said, yet you say you disagree with my take on the situation. The SITUATION embarrasses me and though Belichick isn't responsible for the sh!tstorm that followed, he committed the act that started it, so he is ultimately responsible.

I think my words are commonly mistaken for some sort of anti-Belichick agenda, and I don't see how because I've said he's a great coach and I look forward to his future seasons here. Just because I think he screwed up doesn't mean I hold a grudge.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

At the time, we were looking at the higher-ups' decision within the company, for something we had admitted to doing.

It was immaterial that Goodell had no tapes or notes in hand; the Pats had admitted the rules infraction.

It was immaterial that Goodell never compared the Pats' behavior to behavior elsewhere in the league, even when the Jets' behavior came to light subsequently. It did make Goodell inconsistent, and a hypocrite.

But the choice, as an owner/partner in the league or a coach (employee) of that league, is to go to the competition and open up a shop, or look for a job, there. Uh, 3 down football anybody? I don't think the owner can file a union grievance.

Can the team go to court against the league? Sure. Isn't that what Al Davis did constantly?

Well, although I'm starting to understand his point of view, I don't think we want to become the 70s/80s Raiders, if it can be avoided. Had we done so -- i.e., sued the league -- it would still be a mess, the Pats would still be called "cheaters," and the league would be turning over every rock they could to see what crawled out... sort of like Arlen Sphincter wants to do now.

As I've said: I have no problem with having been busted breaking the rule.

I have no problem with the notion that the commish could make the ruling he did. I have no definitional problem in saying that getting hit for violating the rules is "cheating."

That's at the level of the Company: i.e., one partner in the company is being told to shape up his franchise. Again, no problem. They are made an example of... once again, no problem.

To me, it's like finding a guy in the mailroom smoking pot on duty. You've heard rumors that mailroom guys everywhere smoke pot. You've heard that bill in the mailroom smoked pot. Then somebody gets him on camera smoking pot. Well, what do you do? You take some disciplinary action, so that everybody else gets the right idea. Problem solved.

Goodell was in the middle of his "New Sherrif" routine, and now internal company policy is being investigated under legal (or legalistic, at least), standards.

Here is where I part ways with the anti-Belichickians.

From the point of view of "Fairness," internal company policy is what it is. You take your lumps and move on. You don't demand that it be fair. You don't blame BB, except for the original infraction. You blame people who shift the venue to a quasi-legal one, when in fact it's being dealt with at a company level perfectly adequately.

To my way of thinking, it's almost a slam dunk by now that the kind of "cheating" we're talking about happens all the time (Dolphins, Jets, etc.). Fair enough. The league wants it to stop. Also fair enough. The Pats, unfortunately, become the example. Actually, I'm still good.

Those are actions the company took which, while perhaps not fair, might have been effective (in the judgment of the league.)

In a classic case of Unintended Consequences, however, the league's punishment has infuriated the fans of the rest of the league against the Pats, especially fans of those who lost super bowls to the Pats... and one of those fans was a Senator with too much time on his hands and underwear that says "Property of Comcast."

I don't see the inconsistency with saying: you know what, Goodell is in charge of displining teams/players for their infractions.

I also do not see the flagrant impropriety on the part of the NFL, or compelling state interest, which would cause the US Senate to waste time on this. I do see flagrant conflicts of interest in Sphincter's bringing the case forward.

PFnV

Edit: by the way, replace the mailroom guys smoking pot with mailroom guys drunk on the job. After all, smoking pot breaks US law.

 

[BradyFTW!]

What is curious, is that I don't disagree with anything you said, yet you say you disagree with my take on the situation. The SITUATION embarrasses me and though Belichick isn't responsible for the sh!tstorm that followed, he committed the act that started it, so he is ultimately responsible.

I think my words are commonly mistaken for some sort of anti-Belichick agenda, and I don't see how because I've said he's a great coach and I look forward to his future seasons here. Just because I think he screwed up doesn't mean I hold a grudge.

I should probably clarify my stance, then. The only thing that embarrasses me about Spygate is how ignorant, petty, and generally stupid that it has shown the sports media and general public to be. I am not embarrassed by any of Belichick's actions over the course of Spygate, and don't feel that he is ultimately responsible for it either. Credit for this ****storm has to go to Mangini and Goodell equally, with ESPN, Arlen Specter, Matt Walsh and the Boston Herald as notable opportunists who exploited the situation for their own agendas.

 

[patpatriot]

"In a classic case of Unintended Consequences, however, the league's punishment has infuriated the fans of the rest of the league against the Pats, especially fans of those who lost super bowls to the Pats... and one of those fans was a Senator with too much time on his hands and underwear that says "Property of Comcast."

How often have you heard fans of other teams say:

"well the punishment was unprecedented in it's harshness so what the pats did must be *really* bad"

That may not have happened if the pats had fought for a more appropriate penalty right from the beginning.

Also, Goodell himself says that the taping had little or no effect on the outcome of any game. So what justifies his penalty?

 

[Hardboiled]

In all of this, no one talks about which specific rule they're talking about. The media repeats p105 of the Operations Manual, BB references Constitution and By-laws. Greg Aiello doesn't reference anything when he talks about the Jet's videotaping.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

How often have you heard fans of other teams say:

"well the punishment was unprecedented in it's harshness so what the pats did must be *really* bad"

That may not have happened if the pats had fought for a more appropriate penalty right from the beginning.

Also, Goodell himself says that the taping had little or no effect on the outcome of any game. So what justifies his penalty?

Your last question, interestingly, could come as easily from an "enemy" fan as from a hard-core Pats fan. This isn't some sort of veiled accusation, I am just saying it's interesting that Goodell's handling would produce the same question from both camps.

Your "had the Pats fought for..." idea may be right, or it may not be right. I didn't get the impression that there were options other than sue or take it. I certainly would not advocate trying to fight the battle in the press or among fan bases... has it occured to you that it could also have been worse if the Pats organization chose to magnify the distraction? Say, 10-6, knocked out of the playoffs in the first round? Maybe what we saw was basically a plea-deal: Listen, New England, you can fess up, lose a pick and some money, or we can suspend Belichick for a month, and do those things, and put the weight of the League behind pursuing the proof of our allegations in what passes for the public mind.

I think I saw all 3 Patriots super bowls on NFL network this afternoon. The NFL showed just about every Pats game this season, while we were on the "perfect" [sic] streak.

I also caught something else on NFLN about the worst weather games of all time. Guess what? that show was full of people who thought this or that bad weather game was a hell of a way to decide a championship... guys like Fouts because the Chargers couldn't play in the cold but Cincinatti could...

It actually looked a lot like "you see kids, when people lose big games, they like to have excuses..."

Now, had we decided we were the league's enemy, I can assure you the NFLN, and the NFL in general, would have dealt with the Pats very, very differently.

A final note: the owners are partners in this venture (once again.) I think this is why Pittsburgh has said they felt the league has done all it has to with Spygate.... I think you may see more of that.

Similarly, Kraft had no desire to run afoul of Goodell.

Yeah, it's the "good soldier" routine, and it's caused all Pats fans grief. I just don't think you can guarantee a better outcome had we fought the harshness of the penalties. How do you fight that, other than in court or the media? BB could have started down the excuses road, and I for one am happy he kept it ultra-short and sweet. They can call him arrogant, but they can't parse what he said and invent contradictions.


PFnV

 

[Hamtown]

BB, is the man! He still has my unwavering respect!

 

[#12]

In retrospect, I wish Tagliabue was still commish. I feel like this whole situation would have been COMPLETELY different and avoided with him, but instead we get Goodell who drops the ball on this one BIG TIME.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Smug that going through near-death gives you "answers". I've been through things that have given me "answers", it's called LIFE. I didn't need a wake-up call to realize what's important.

Life can not give you the perspective that facing death does. And you obviously had no clue as to what is important as you proved in your "Well, how much do you make" comments.

Without hardship, we take things for granted. That applies to EVERYONE without exception...even you.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Finger pointing is for the weak. If a cop pulled me over for going 56 in a 55, I could complain that "everyone does it", "I'm being singled out" and "it's not a big advantage" - but when it comes down to it, did I break the rules or not?

Tell me about Dungy's "grey area".

Actually, if you were going 56 & everyone else was going 55 & you got a ticket, you'd go to fight it and you'd win 100 out of 100 times. which tells us you don't get penalized for doing something everyone else does.

Take that a step further and if you were doing 75 and everyone else was doing 74, you'd still win everytime. The true interpretation of the MA state speeding law states that you must be travelling faster than the flow of traffic as to cause a danger to others. The posted 65mph signs are not the law. It all depends on your speed in relation to others.

Just like Belichik. Was he doing something no one else did? Absolutely not. So your speeding analogy is full of holes.

 

[richpats]

Life can not give you the perspective that facing death does. And you obviously had no clue as to what is important as you proved in your "Well, how much do you make" comments.

Without hardship, we take things for granted. That applies to EVERYONE without exception...even you.

Typical changing my words around - when I ask how much you make as a FAN, I'm asking how much you make from being a FAN, which is the same as me....NOTHING. You got on a pedestal about being a superior fan and I thought I'd offer a little perspective to you, and you chose not to take it.

And hardships come in other forms than near-death experiences, just to let you know.

 

[richpats]

So your speeding analogy is full of holes.

The rule has been broken though. You chose to ignore that obvious fact.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Actually, if you were going 56 & everyone else was going 55 & you got a ticket, you'd go to fight it and you'd win 100 out of 100 times. which tells us you don't get penalized for doing something everyone else does.

Take that a step further and if you were doing 75 and everyone else was doing 74, you'd still win everytime. The true interpretation of the MA state speeding law states that you must be travelling faster than the flow of traffic as to cause a danger to others. The posted 65mph signs are not the law. It all depends on your speed in relation to others.

Just like Belichik. Was he doing something no one else did? Absolutely not. So your speeding analogy is full of holes.

The rule has been broken though. You chose to ignore that obvious fact.

I actually directly addressed the obvious fact. Just like the obvious fact that I once passed a police cruiser going 70mph while I was doing 72mph in a 65mph zone. I broke a rule (the obvious fact) but the judge ridiculed the police officer at my hearing for wasting the court's time.

"after all" said the clerk magistrate, "everyone does 72mph!" He quickly over-turned the ticket without penalty.

BTW...when the officer pulled me over, he told me I disrespected his police vehicle and was arrogant (sound familiar?) for having the balls to pass a police vehicle. I told him I didn't know it was a crime for disrespecting a police vehicle. At my hearing, the state police representative told me I was lucky because I was a wise-guy and he showed me the little note the officer wrote. It just so happens police officers are not supposed to write little notes like that.

I just smiled at him and said I'll work on that (being a wise-guy).