Welcome to PatsFans.com

We're only losing the 32nd pick

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by eastsrule, Sep 13, 2007.

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

    eastsrule Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    GO PATS....

    Fair punishment. Lets all move on.

    Can't wait to see what PFT thinks.
  2. Kdo5

    Kdo5 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +13 / 5 / -1

    Re: We're only losing the 32nd pick.

    I like your enthusiasm but please try to avoid jinxing us! Its the second goddamn game of the season coming up.
  3. PF1996

    PF1996 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    762
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Re: We're only losing the 32nd pick.

    Give me a break. We are losing a FIRST ROUND TALENT that would have helped the team for 5 years for breaking a procedural rules. Please explain how this is "fair punishment" when teams who STEAL SIGNALS using external sources, and use those signals to affect a game lose NO PICKS.

    "Fair punishment" for breaking a procedural rule would have been a fine

    "Fair punishment" if the purpose of the punishment was to also be a deterrent would have been a 4th round pick

    "Fair punishment", regardless of the choice of picks, wouldn't depend on whether the Pats made the playoffs. The real intent of this "punishment" isn't to penalize the Patriots for breaking a procedural rule, but rather to damage the Pats' chances for success.
  4. eastsrule

    eastsrule Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Re: We're only losing the 32nd pick.

    In my mind, the Pats shouldn't have been punished at all. It is not cheating, however it is a rule violation.

    I have seen an argument somewhere on here that it is a vague rule. To add to this, if they were to ban recording opposition sidelines, it is too hard to police, there is the telecast cameras plus thousands of fans cameras pointed at various points of the field. It is either they ban ALL cameras besides the telecast ones or do nothing about this.

    There is also the point that what did the Patriots actually gain by doing this. Which is a point I agree with. Not much would be gained at all because there is still player ability to take into account, not just blitz sets or packages!!!


    In terms of it being a 'fair punishment'... i'm being realistic. The rest of the league, fans, media would not shut up if the Pats didnt get some sort of punishment like this. Suspending BB was never a viable option and there was always going to be a fine.

    It is fair because, the Patriots won't be doing this again. And if we win the Superbowl, the people who doubt our sportsmanship will have no leg to stand on. This punishment should put this matter to rest.
  5. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    20,389
    Likes Received:
    91
    Ratings:
    +211 / 14 / -2

    Belichick has bent the rules for years. He sticks it to the league whever he can. This is the first punishment. I suspect that Belichick wouldn't change a thing, except not getting caught this time. As long as the Krafts are fine with the situation, I am. A first round pick is a small price to pay.

    We gave up one of our FIVE day one picks. This is NOT a big deal for us. There will be a lot of hand-wringing. There should be. People should be scared of breaking the rules and be afraid of the next punishment. We are in great shape this year, in 2008 and in 2009, with regard to personnel and with regard to the cap. Let's enjoy the rest of the Belichick decade/dynasty!

    I do hope that the league uses the fines to wire up the MLB's.
  6. eastsrule

    eastsrule Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    To be honest, I'd rather the fines be used to fund Mangini's trips to Jenny Craig/Liposuction.
  7. Brady to Brown

    Brady to Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,893
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I believe Goodell sent out a letter saying no more cameras on the field.

    Even H O M E R S must understand that having a camera on the field is breaking the rules.
  8. Armen Da Pats Fan

    Armen Da Pats Fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,571
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Correct me if I am wrong, but don't we also have San Fran's #1 next year?

    If we get to keep that one, chances are that it will be higher than our own pick.

    So, really this just comes out to a $750,00 fine for the Pats. Not bad. Pocket change for Kraft.

    And now we can finally move on to football and get past all this bs about cameras and spying!

    Plus, the "us against them" mentality is BACK in New England! Always a good thing!
  9. sanvara

    sanvara Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2007
    Messages:
    854
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I would not want to be in BB's shoes if he gets caught doing the same thing again. Definitely another max $500k fine, more picks taken - at least two #1s, suspension for a year.
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>