Welcome to PatsFans.com

Spygate Information Analyzed

Discussion in 'Visiting Locker Room' started by NFL_Truth, Oct 30, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NFL_Truth

    NFL_Truth Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Here is a great link to a website that has done an outstanding job of covering anf analyzing the events of spygate. It even allows Pats supporters to tell their side and this should make an interesting read to anyone interested in the history of the Patriots.

    Belichick Spygate Scandal: The Untold Story
  2. ICSB

    ICSB Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    540
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Someone is obsessed!!! I hate the Pats but come on man.
  3. JaxPats

    JaxPats Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    Messages:
    751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:


    Mods, Its obvious this individual has a morbid fixation on this subject. He has continulessly stroked this BS non-stop all day yesterday and at 2:20 AM in the morning! If that in itself isn't a phobia, I don't know what is. Please ban this parisite. :banned: Thanks

    Ps. Anyone else who thinks this, play add your comments.
  4. Watson's IQ

    Watson's IQ Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,574
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I actually disagree. He's clearly has a weird fixation with spygate, but he hasn't been going around insulting people, and he's kept his posts to the visiting locker room (where this stuff is supposed to go). Banning him seems stupid, and would only confirm his opinion of Patriots fans. I still don't understand his crusade, since he's clearly not going to convince anyone, but I have no issue with letting him continue to spin his tires.
  5. Jetssuck

    Jetssuck Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

  6. NFL_Truth

    NFL_Truth Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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.
  7. NFL_Truth

    NFL_Truth Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Thank you for the partial stick-up. But im not here to convince any pats fans that my views are correct. I know this would be a very unlikely thing to happen without question. I'm only looking to share my views, hear pats fans thoughts directly instead of assuming, etc. I know i've posted alot of Spygate things but that is only to make people more away. I'm layout out the facts, people can "interpret" (no pun intended) them anyway they chose.
  8. Double G

    Double G Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,271
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    "I actually disagree. He's clearly has a weird fixation with spygate, but he hasn't been going around insulting people, and he's kept his posts to the visiting locker room (where this stuff is supposed to go). Banning him seems stupid, and would only confirm his opinion of Patriots fans. I still don't understand his crusade, since he's clearly not going to convince anyone, but I have no issue with letting him continue to spin his tires."

    I agree 100%.

    My theory is he can't afford professional help or the meds that go along with it, so this is his only "therapy" at this point.

    He is 100% convinced he is on the side of truth, justice and the American way and is an extreme Patriots hater, there is not a thing any of us can say to convince him he is wrong about this, so let him babble on and on and on regarding this if it helps him sleep better at night.

    Getting out of his system to use a technical term.

    There is another technical term for someone like him; oh, yeah, he's got a screw loose.
  9. Watson's IQ

    Watson's IQ Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,574
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    This is only partially true. I can't and won't refute everything you've stated. However, you have offered up as a fact that the Patriots 3 Super Bowl wins are a direct consequence of their misconduct. This is by it's very definition your personal opinion, and not a fact. First of all, it pre-supposes some tangible advantage (in terms of points) that results from the filming. While this may or may not be true (and I'm inclined to offer limited support to your thesis that there is, or else what's the point of doing it) it's still essentially unprovable, therefore not a fact. So anything based on this assumption, including that the Patriots would not have won their Super Bowls without cheating is fundamentally your opinion, and not fact.
  10. NFL_Truth

    NFL_Truth Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Wow, you'll probably only hear this once, but that was the best defense I've ever heard. Even though im certain we disagree Watson, you are certainly an educated fan and I respect that. A great deal of what you said is certainly true. I think where we disagree is in the value and advantage the tapes had. I think its more, I'm assuming you think its less, but thats the best argument I've heard yet.

    Personally, I feel Belichick is a football genius. I don't like him but i have to give the devil his due. And i just dont see a man of his intelligence set up this camera scenario, which he would have been smart enough to see that it could bring fourth great consequence, without it having a major benifit factor. Belichick is a smart man who would weigh risk vs. reward. If they would have won all 3 SB's without it, he wouldn't bother. He wouldnt waste time to do something that he wouldn't need to win.

    But regardless of our different opinions, your analyzation of the situation proves that if nothing else you know what your talking about. People can analyze these comments however they chose but I do respect your method of observation.
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2008
  11. Watson's IQ

    Watson's IQ Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,574
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    See my post in the other thread, I responded directly to the questions you raised.
  12. NFL_Truth

    NFL_Truth Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I just wrote back to it.
  13. Jetssuck

    Jetssuck Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    What qualifications are you looking for in an author?

    I like to know what your qualifications are beyond being an angry ignoramus?

    You don't know that a 2006 memo has no bearing on what happened before 2006. Yet, your a self-proclaimed knowledgable football guy.
  14. NFL_Truth

    NFL_Truth Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Its not the memo that has bearing on what happened before 2006, its the breaking of the rules from 2000-2007 that has the effect. The memo was just an example of how the Pats ignored the rules even when reminded.
  15. Jetssuck

    Jetssuck Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Funny how you like to never answer one question ever asked of you. If they were breaking the rules their would be no need of a memo. Just order an investigation at the first accusation.
  16. NFL_Truth

    NFL_Truth Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Do you deny the fact that Belichick admitted to goodell that his videotaping policy had been in place since he became the head coach?
  17. Jetssuck

    Jetssuck Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    No I don't deny. But what is the relevance of that fact? The memo was issued in 2006 for the purpose to give warning to all 32 teams that filming such and such was no longer going to be tolerated. No longer tolerated = no longer allowed = allowed before 2006.
  18. NFL_Truth

    NFL_Truth Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Where does this say tolerated?

    2006 NFL 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."

    Sounds like prohibited, not tolerated.
  19. LeonPowe

    LeonPowe Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Agreed. If the rule was clear, then they would have been punished right away, no memo would be needed.
  20. Jetssuck

    Jetssuck Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Agreed prohibitted beginning in 2006.

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

    NFL_Truth Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:


    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.
  22. LeonPowe

    LeonPowe Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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.
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2008
  23. Jetssuck

    Jetssuck Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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.
  24. NFL_Truth

    NFL_Truth Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

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

    NFL_Truth Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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.
  26. Jetssuck

    Jetssuck Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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.
  27. NFL_Truth

    NFL_Truth Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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.
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2008
  28. Jetssuck

    Jetssuck Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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?
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2008
  29. NFL_Truth

    NFL_Truth Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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.
  30. Jetssuck

    Jetssuck Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page