The Pats haven't won since spygate: setting the record straight

Discussion in ' - Patriots Fan Forum' started by ivanvamp, Mar 3, 2012.

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

    ivanvamp In the Starting Line-Up

    I wish that so-called spygate would never be discussed again, but sadly, that will probably never be a reality. After SB 46, a lot of people drummed up the old, "The Pats haven't won a Super Bowl since spygate" line. It died down for a few weeks, but has resurfaced with the Saints' bounty scandal. As much as I'd love for this other scandal to make people forget about spygate, it seems like the first thing people think of when they hear about the bounty scandal is, unfortunately, spygate itself. The penalty for taping opposing signals was so harsh that it has become the standard by which all other penalties are measured.

    Within the last day, I have heard no less than 10 people say/write, "The Pats haven't won anything since spygate". I'm sick of it and - if for no other reason than that it's therapeutic for me - want to put that tired old line to bed.

    To refresh peoples' memories, though it goes back earlier than that, the formal spygate scandal began when Patriots were caught taping signals against the Jets in the first quarter of the first game of the season in 2007, a 38-14 rout of the New York Jets. From the moment they were caught, they (and this has been confirmed by Goodell's office) did not re-engage in the practice.

    The Pats have always held that the taping was for the benefit of long-term study on teams; it's a quicker process for intel than simply watching the opposing sideline and writing it down. In fact, it was such a common practice that when the Pats were doing it during Herm Edwards' tenure as HC of the NYJ, Edwards looked at the camera, waved, and smiled. Several prominent football people like Jimmy Johnson came out and said it was extremely common in the NFL to do what the Patriots did. Again, the benefit was a time-saver to gather information for down the road. It had no benefit for that immediate game (contrary to what many idiots in the media suggested).

    So, since the first quarter of the first game of 2007, the Pats have won nothing, right? Well, except for this:

    - 64-16 regular season record, an .800 winning percentage. That's the best regular season record in the NFL over the last 5 years.

    - 4 division titles. They tied for a 5th but lost out on a low-level tiebreaker in the year that Tom Brady was out for the season. No team has won more division titles over the last 5 years than the Patriots.

    - 2 AFC championships. No team has won more than 2 conference championships in the last 5 years. The Giants, of course, won 2 (and 2 SBs), and the Steelers won 2.

    - Gone 4-4 in the playoffs over that time. Not the best playoff record in the NFL over that time span, but not many teams have won more than 4 playoff games since 2007.

    - Regular season + post season record over the last 5 seasons: 68-20 (.772). No team has come close to that record over that time span.

    - Came within about 1:30, and two amazing catches, away from adding two more SB titles. Great plays by the Giants, but both of which were historically great plays. In other words, while the Pats did indeed lose 2 SBs, and didn't put forth their A-level performance in either, they still lost in the last minute when the opponent made unbelievable plays to get down the field. So yes, the Pats lost, but they lost in as close a scenario as possible on both occasions, and on both occasions they came within a foot (or a yard) of completing their own miraculous play that would have won the game in the last seconds themselves.

    Bottom line: the whole "they haven't won anything" since spygate is a complete crock. In fact, they've won more than any other franchise in the sport since spygate. Not more super bowls, but more everything elses. Of course we all want the SB titles, but hey, in the past 5 years only 4 teams have won a SB anyway, so lots of great teams (Peyton Manning's Colts, Tony Romo's Cowboys, Philip Rivers' Chargers, Ray Lewis' Ravens, etc.) have failed to win a SB.
  2. PatsSox363804

    PatsSox363804 In the Starting Line-Up

    I don't think anyone on this board needs to be convinced of this. As for others, they are just going to hate regardless but that's really what pissed me off the most about losing this past superbowl is that the idiots out there can still use that ridiculous argument. Bottom line is if Samuel and Welker do their jobs we have 2 more rings and actually if Samuel does his Brady probably never gets hurt.
  3. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson Veteran Supporter

    If you are sick of hearing about it, why are you creating new posts to validate it?
  4. MSU

    MSU Banned

    You can write 10 paragraphs on the matter if you'd like. But the fact is the Patriots haven't won a Superbowl since they violated the leauge code of conduct for cheating. Facts are facts. If Welker didn't choke we wouldn't have to worry about this.
  5. ivanvamp

    ivanvamp In the Starting Line-Up

    I explained why in the second paragraph. I wrote in clear, easy-to-read English. Perhaps you missed it.
  6. MSU

    MSU Banned

    Woah, careful there. AndyJohnson is never wrong bro.
  7. Bill B.

    Bill B. Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    The Dolphins haven't won a Super Bowl since they had a crackhead running back. So I guess the Dolphins can't win without a crackhead RB. They tried going the pothead route, but he couldn't get past the hashmarks.
  8. Joey007

    Joey007 In the Starting Line-Up

    #91 Jersey

    So, Welker catches 122 passes over the 2011 season, drops one in the SB, which didn't lose us the game since there were other factors too (Gronk's ankle) he's suddenly terrible?? Oh, and since you pretty much hate the Patriots and their players for the most part why bash them on a Patriots forum??
  9. upstater1

    upstater1 Pro Bowl Player

    Your post is inaccurate. Patriots have never violated the league code of conduct for cheating, whatever that is.
  10. MSU

    MSU Banned

    I never said he was terrible, don't put words in my mouth. But it is a fact that he chocked at the biggest moment, where he couldn't even make a routine catch.
  11. upstater1

    upstater1 Pro Bowl Player

    Patriots have been in 2 Super Bowls since Spygate.

    Are people saying the Patriots can't win a Super Bowl without game film of signals?

    How does that explain the Super Bowl wins over Carolina and Philadelphia?

    Easy to bat down that idiocy with this point.
  12. MSU

    MSU Banned

    Patriots were caught cheating in 2007 and lost a draft pick, paid fines, and received suspensions. That's a fact. My apologizes for the confusion, I don't know the exact name of the code or rule they violated because its not exactly the most important info in this whole thing.
  13. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    not exactly a routine catch...

    and, no, it isn't a fact that he choked -- it is a fact that he dropped it. Two different things.
  14. MSU

    MSU Banned

    No, he definitely choked. The game would've been an almost certain win barring a miracle from the Giants. He dropped the ball, he choked.
  15. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson Veteran Supporter

    Didn't get that far. I saw the topic and the length, and posted my thoughts.
  16. ivanvamp

    ivanvamp In the Starting Line-Up

    Well, that explains it.

    Lesson to the kids out there: read before you post. This public service announcement has been provided by AndyJohnson.

  17. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson Veteran Supporter

    Yes it does explain it. Starting a long post to complain and discuss why it is too bad that people won't stop talking about Spygate doesn't deserve a read, it deserves a question of why you are bringing it up. You explanation that you are bringing it up because you are frustrated other people are bringing it up, didn't really clarify much for me.
  18. ivanvamp

    ivanvamp In the Starting Line-Up

    Wait...I thought you didn't read that far. You said, "Didn't get that far. I saw the topic and the length, and posted my thoughts."

    If you *had* read all the way to the second paragraph, you'd have seen my explanation. So now you are faced with two possibilities:

    (1) You didn't read my explanation, as you claimed a few minutes ago. This explains why you wondered why I would write about this topic. I had already essentially answered your question, however. It explains why you would wonder about something you didn't read. Hence my point about why it's important to actually read before you post.


    (2) You did read it but thought it was a lame or unclear reason for why I posted it. In which case you were lying when you claimed to not have read that far.
  19. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae Retired Jersey Club Supporter

    Disable Jersey

    The horse is dead
  20. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson Veteran Supporter


    I didn't read it, and asked why you would bother.

    You said its in the 2nd paragraph THEN I read it and it still doesn't explain why you would create a post about Spygate to complain about why people are talking so much about Spygate.

    Sometimes you need to just realize that people are telling you what they think about your post, rather than trying to create some kind of conspiracy theory about why people are always lying when they post in response to you.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 3, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page