More King: Patriots cheated in the truest sense of the word and more

[SVN]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/05/13/walsh/index.html?eref=T1

this is harshest headline i have seen. its clear that he is stunned by fans who thinks otherwise.

 

[PatsFan24]

Re: More King atriots cheated in the truest sense of the word and more

yeah it gets reported, but not anywhere near as often as what the patriots did

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: More King atriots cheated in the truest sense of the word and more

They're just getting their last shots in. The gravy train this story provided is ending.

 

[BSR]

Re: More King atriots cheated in the truest sense of the word and more

He also said that an offensive lineman holding is also cheating. Now they are changing the common usuage of words to fit the crime. Nice!

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: More King atriots cheated in the truest sense of the word and more

People really need to stop worrying about the clowns in the media. Most of them aren't smart enough to tie their own shoes without having pictures showing them how to do it. Peter King has been among the leading 'bashers' since the beginning. His ignorance of how this stuff actually works has led him from one idiotic column to the next. Now, everything he was bleating on about has been refuted. Commissioner Clouseau himself noted that the only significant issue was the sideline taping, and the only question that needed to be asked was regarding the 'interpretation' of the rule. Clouseau didn't buy Belichick's interpretation, so he punished the Patriots.

The story is over. The media looks foolish. Let's move on.

 

[BPF]

Re: More King atriots cheated in the truest sense of the word and more

Get all your shots in now, this bs is about to die.

 

[maverick4]

Re: More King atriots cheated in the truest sense of the word and more

Peter King is one of the dumbest columnists on the planet. How can someone so totally mis-understand and categorize a situation, with all the information in front of him?

 

[upstater1]

Re: More King atriots cheated in the truest sense of the word and more

MY EMAIL TO PETER:

Peter, it's completely disingenuous for you to say that when other teams get caught doing what the Patriots did, the media will report it. In point of fact, they HAVE BEEN caught. I've even written to you in the past to get your opinion. Len Pasquerelli wrote an article on the Dolphins doing it in 2006. The NFL's Steve Alic responded by saying "That's football." When Mangini also admitted taping against the Patriots, he claimed that he had permission to tape though the Patriots denied it. So, you're telling me the NFL says you can break the rules if you have permission? Well, Matt Estrella could have also said he had permission (whether he did nor not). The Patriots did nothing that the Jets and Dolphins haven't already admitted doing.

As for whether it's cheating, I heard Goodell say today that stealing signals is permissable. Stealing them by tape is not. So, essentially, it's the technological violation that tripped the Patriots, not the actual stealing of the signals. Again, stealing signals ISN'T cheating. Taping them is. That's why fans are parsing your cheating comment.

As for the idea that the largest fine in NFL history somehow supports your point-of-view, that's giving Goodell a lot of credit. If he hadn't fined them at all, then would it have meant the Patriots hadn't cheated? No, they still committed the same exact act. In fact, Goodell admitted to Costas before the Chargers game that the major issue was not that the Patriots were stealing signals, but that "they did it out in the open." He's more concerned with appearances.

Someone will have to explain to me why paying the league's best QB and RB under the table to circumvent the salary cap (as the Broncos did) is a lesser violation than taping signals which are permissable to steal by other means.

Are you just making this argument because of the unprecedented punishment, or are you actually weighing the impact of the advantage gained from either form of rule-breaking?

The fact is, most media pundits including yourself were imaging the Patriots would be stripped of a third rounder initially. It was only shortly before the punishment was meted out that suddenly everyone ratcheted up expectations.

 

[Clonamery]

Re: More King atriots cheated in the truest sense of the word and more

MY EMAIL TO PETER:

Peter, it's completely disingenuous for you to say that when other teams get caught doing what the Patriots did, the media will report it. In point of fact, they HAVE BEEN caught. I've even written to you in the past to get your opinion. Len Pasquerelli wrote an article on the Dolphins doing it in 2006. The NFL's Steve Alic responded by saying "That's football." When Mangini also admitted taping against the Patriots, he claimed that he had permission to tape though the Patriots denied it. So, you're telling me the NFL says you can break the rules if you have permission? Well, Matt Estrella could have also said he had permission (whether he did nor not). The Patriots did nothing that the Jets and Dolphins haven't already admitted doing.

As for whether it's cheating, I heard Goodell say today that stealing signals is permissable. Stealing them by tape is not. So, essentially, it's the technological violation that tripped the Patriots, not the actual stealing of the signals. Again, stealing signals ISN'T cheating. Taping them is. That's why fans are parsing your cheating comment.

As for the idea that the largest fine in NFL history somehow supports your point-of-view, that's giving Goodell a lot of credit. If he hadn't fined them at all, then would it have meant the Patriots hadn't cheated? No, they still committed the same exact act. In fact, Goodell admitted to Costas before the Chargers game that the major issue was not that the Patriots were stealing signals, but that "they did it out in the open." He's more concerned with appearances.

Someone will have to explain to me why paying the league's best QB and RB under the table to circumvent the salary cap (as the Broncos did) is a lesser violation than taping signals which are permissable to steal by other means.

Are you just making this argument because of the unprecedented punishment, or are you actually weighing the impact of the advantage gained from either form of rule-breaking?

The fact is, most media pundits including yourself were imaging the Patriots would be stripped of a third rounder initially. It was only shortly before the punishment was meted out that suddenly everyone ratcheted up expectations.

Smart e-mail. Ignorant recipient.

 

[vyrago]

Re: More King atriots cheated in the truest sense of the word and more

King's column suggests that the no taping rule has been effect for seven years. Haven't there been some questions about when this rule went into effect?

"The Patriots violated a clearly written statute in the NFL policy manual, apparently consistently (if not weekly) over a seven-year period."

 

[SVN]

Re: More King atriots cheated in the truest sense of the word and more

MY EMAIL TO PETER:

Peter, it's completely disingenuous for you to say that when other teams get caught doing what the Patriots did, the media will report it. In point of fact, they HAVE BEEN caught. I've even written to you in the past to get your opinion. Len Pasquerelli wrote an article on the Dolphins doing it in 2006. The NFL's Steve Alic responded by saying "That's football." When Mangini also admitted taping against the Patriots, he claimed that he had permission to tape though the Patriots denied it. So, you're telling me the NFL says you can break the rules if you have permission? Well, Matt Estrella could have also said he had permission (whether he did nor not). The Patriots did nothing that the Jets and Dolphins haven't already admitted doing.

As for whether it's cheating, I heard Goodell say today that stealing signals is permissable. Stealing them by tape is not. So, essentially, it's the technological violation that tripped the Patriots, not the actual stealing of the signals. Again, stealing signals ISN'T cheating. Taping them is. That's why fans are parsing your cheating comment.

As for the idea that the largest fine in NFL history somehow supports your point-of-view, that's giving Goodell a lot of credit. If he hadn't fined them at all, then would it have meant the Patriots hadn't cheated? No, they still committed the same exact act. In fact, Goodell admitted to Costas before the Chargers game that the major issue was not that the Patriots were stealing signals, but that "they did it out in the open." He's more concerned with appearances.

Someone will have to explain to me why paying the league's best QB and RB under the table to circumvent the salary cap (as the Broncos did) is a lesser violation than taping signals which are permissable to steal by other means.

Are you just making this argument because of the unprecedented punishment, or are you actually weighing the impact of the advantage gained from either form of rule-breaking?

The fact is, most media pundits including yourself were imaging the Patriots would be stripped of a third rounder initially. It was only shortly before the punishment was meted out that suddenly everyone ratcheted up expectations.

i think king mentioned once that his email gets filtered by others like perloff. so i doubt if this stuff even reaches him personally.

 

[upstater1]

Re: More King atriots cheated in the truest sense of the word and more

King's column suggests that the no taping rule has been effect for seven years. Haven't there been some questions about when this rule went into effect?

"The Patriots violated a clearly written statute in the NFL policy manual, apparently consistently (if not weekly) over a seven-year period."

The rule has always been there. But the actual rule is ambiguous, and IMO should be interpreted the way Belichick interprets it.

The rule in the memo, however, is unambiguous. That came in 2006. King only gives you the memo. He avoids giving you the actual rule because he knows how ambiguous it is.

 

[The_Bloke]

Re: More King atriots cheated in the truest sense of the word and more

MY EMAIL TO PETER:

Peter, it's completely disingenuous for you to say that when other teams get caught doing what the Patriots did, the media will report it. In point of fact, they HAVE BEEN caught. I've even written to you in the past to get your opinion. Len Pasquerelli wrote an article on the Dolphins doing it in 2006. The NFL's Steve Alic responded by saying "That's football." When Mangini also admitted taping against the Patriots, he claimed that he had permission to tape though the Patriots denied it. So, you're telling me the NFL says you can break the rules if you have permission? Well, Matt Estrella could have also said he had permission (whether he did nor not). The Patriots did nothing that the Jets and Dolphins haven't already admitted doing.

As for whether it's cheating, I heard Goodell say today that stealing signals is permissable. Stealing them by tape is not. So, essentially, it's the technological violation that tripped the Patriots, not the actual stealing of the signals. Again, stealing signals ISN'T cheating. Taping them is. That's why fans are parsing your cheating comment.

As for the idea that the largest fine in NFL history somehow supports your point-of-view, that's giving Goodell a lot of credit. If he hadn't fined them at all, then would it have meant the Patriots hadn't cheated? No, they still committed the same exact act. In fact, Goodell admitted to Costas before the Chargers game that the major issue was not that the Patriots were stealing signals, but that "they did it out in the open." He's more concerned with appearances.

Someone will have to explain to me why paying the league's best QB and RB under the table to circumvent the salary cap (as the Broncos did) is a lesser violation than taping signals which are permissable to steal by other means.

Are you just making this argument because of the unprecedented punishment, or are you actually weighing the impact of the advantage gained from either form of rule-breaking?

The fact is, most media pundits including yourself were imaging the Patriots would be stripped of a third rounder initially. It was only shortly before the punishment was meted out that suddenly everyone ratcheted up expectations.

Well written. Nice job.

This is the one thing that has never been brought up, and I don't know why.

The memo that was received by the Patriots that strengthened the nfl statute (not in the rule book BTW) was sent to all 32 teams, not just the Patriots.

Why have people not asked Peter King, and others, the simple question, "Why was it sent to all 32 teams and not just the Patriots."

Then perhaps we can help him to answer it. "Because the Patriots were not the only team doing it. it was fairly common practice in the NFL or the league would not have sent the memo to ALL 32 TEAMS.

The only difference is that the Patriots were set up by Mister Roger "Jets" Goodell and his accomplice, Rats Mangini.

All of the teams were issued the memo and yet the Patriots were the only team that was turned in on that September day. Why is that? Because it was a set up by the former Jets employee Roger Goodell with his Jets buddies. Goodell obviously despises Bill Belichick. It is easy to see,and sense.

When are the Pats going to go on the offensive with this because if they do not it will linger on forever, as evidenced by this garbage from Peter King.

At this stage the Pats have nothing to lose and all to gain by coming out with all guns blazing and name names and squash Goodell once and for all.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

Re: More King atriots cheated in the truest sense of the word and more

MY EMAIL TO PETER:

Peter, it's completely disingenuous for you to say that when other teams get caught doing what the Patriots did, the media will report it. In point of fact, they HAVE BEEN caught. I've even written to you in the past to get your opinion. Len Pasquerelli wrote an article on the Dolphins doing it in 2006. The NFL's Steve Alic responded by saying "That's football." When Mangini also admitted taping against the Patriots, he claimed that he had permission to tape though the Patriots denied it. So, you're telling me the NFL says you can break the rules if you have permission? Well, Matt Estrella could have also said he had permission (whether he did nor not). The Patriots did nothing that the Jets and Dolphins haven't already admitted doing.

As for whether it's cheating, I heard Goodell say today that stealing signals is permissable. Stealing them by tape is not. So, essentially, it's the technological violation that tripped the Patriots, not the actual stealing of the signals. Again, stealing signals ISN'T cheating. Taping them is. That's why fans are parsing your cheating comment.

As for the idea that the largest fine in NFL history somehow supports your point-of-view, that's giving Goodell a lot of credit. If he hadn't fined them at all, then would it have meant the Patriots hadn't cheated? No, they still committed the same exact act. In fact, Goodell admitted to Costas before the Chargers game that the major issue was not that the Patriots were stealing signals, but that "they did it out in the open." He's more concerned with appearances.

Someone will have to explain to me why paying the league's best QB and RB under the table to circumvent the salary cap (as the Broncos did) is a lesser violation than taping signals which are permissable to steal by other means.

Are you just making this argument because of the unprecedented punishment, or are you actually weighing the impact of the advantage gained from either form of rule-breaking?

The fact is, most media pundits including yourself were imaging the Patriots would be stripped of a third rounder initially. It was only shortly before the punishment was meted out that suddenly everyone ratcheted up expectations.

Awesome letter! You conveyed the right amount of dismay and irritation without getting overboard.

 

[stcjones]

Re: More King atriots cheated in the truest sense of the word and more

People really need to stop worrying about the clowns in the media. Most of them aren't smart enough to tie their own shoes without having pictures showing them how to do it. Peter King has been among the leading 'bashers' since the beginning. His ignorance of how this stuff actually works has led him from one idiotic column to the next. Now, everything he was bleating on about has been refuted. Commissioner Clouseau himself noted that the only significant issue was the sideline taping, and the only question that needed to be asked was regarding the 'interpretation' of the rule. Clouseau didn't buy Belichick's interpretation, so he punished the Patriots.

The story is over. The media looks foolish. Let's move on.

You are right......Pecker King is one of the most ignorant, and moronic "sports" writers out there........just a bumbling douche.........There was NO CHEATING here......just a VIOLATION of the rules........why can't these bleeding a-holes get that???? Oh yeah......ratings........

 

[stcjones]

Re: More King atriots cheated in the truest sense of the word and more

MY EMAIL TO PETER:

Peter, it's completely disingenuous for you to say that when other teams get caught doing what the Patriots did, the media will report it. In point of fact, they HAVE BEEN caught. I've even written to you in the past to get your opinion. Len Pasquerelli wrote an article on the Dolphins doing it in 2006. The NFL's Steve Alic responded by saying "That's football." When Mangini also admitted taping against the Patriots, he claimed that he had permission to tape though the Patriots denied it. So, you're telling me the NFL says you can break the rules if you have permission? Well, Matt Estrella could have also said he had permission (whether he did nor not). The Patriots did nothing that the Jets and Dolphins haven't already admitted doing.

As for whether it's cheating, I heard Goodell say today that stealing signals is permissable. Stealing them by tape is not. So, essentially, it's the technological violation that tripped the Patriots, not the actual stealing of the signals. Again, stealing signals ISN'T cheating. Taping them is. That's why fans are parsing your cheating comment.

As for the idea that the largest fine in NFL history somehow supports your point-of-view, that's giving Goodell a lot of credit. If he hadn't fined them at all, then would it have meant the Patriots hadn't cheated? No, they still committed the same exact act. In fact, Goodell admitted to Costas before the Chargers game that the major issue was not that the Patriots were stealing signals, but that "they did it out in the open." He's more concerned with appearances.

Someone will have to explain to me why paying the league's best QB and RB under the table to circumvent the salary cap (as the Broncos did) is a lesser violation than taping signals which are permissable to steal by other means.

Are you just making this argument because of the unprecedented punishment, or are you actually weighing the impact of the advantage gained from either form of rule-breaking?

The fact is, most media pundits including yourself were imaging the Patriots would be stripped of a third rounder initially. It was only shortly before the punishment was meted out that suddenly everyone ratcheted up expectations.

I like the letter.....would only correct that "taping them is a VIOLATION of the RULES but is NOT CHEATING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thx

 

[SVN]

My email to king

Peter,
You keep saying , the patriots and Belichick benefitted from the taped signals . Doesnt this also mean brady was a mediocre QB who could not win those games without camera help ? Doesnt taping of defensive signals being a factor automatically mean the biggest beneficiary is tom brady ? Why dont you say that too or is it just that its personal with belichick and you ?
By the way iam a patriots fan
-
Thanks

 

[RhodyPatriot]

Peter: King of the Mediots

I'm wondering how long it's been since anyone in the Patriots front office has accepted a call from Peter: King the of Mediots.
That is what 99% of this ginned up "scandal" has been about.
BB's refusal to suck the media lollipop.