Shula at it again with the "Asterisk" Argument

[FirstAndGoal]

I think you drink too much koolaide.

When did bb becomes the winnest coach in nfl history?

bb is regarded on a higher level by you but not by the majority.

So by your logic everytime a team gets a penality called on them they are just as guilty as your pats because they broke the rules. Theres no degrees its just black and white.

I think he means that Shula was penalized a first round draft pick for his "negotiations". People in glass houses and all...

 

[shmessy]

As far as I know he only made a comment that had anything involving an asterisk just the once and it has been the media that has reasked him about it many times. I might be wrong though I dont follow his every quote, I only know I only read the one quote that was originally aired on mike and mike.
_________________

Shmessy: OK, now you are clearly being disingenuous. This thread has linked to the quote to Bianchi on Thursday. I have copied and pasted it for you in this thread TWICE - -and you claim you haven't seen it? What is your problem?
___________

I personally am surprised to hear you support mercury morris's comments over shula's. IMO mercury morris looks like a clown by making the statements he has made.
____________

Shmessy: Can you read? Or are you purposely twisting what I wrote? I said plainly that I think Morris is DELUDED. However, he at least is honest about his opinion. He isn't being TWO-FACED about his opinion, by stating it then saying he will be the first to congratulate those he is actively belittling.
_____________

The only thing shula has really said is he is rooting for someone to save his teams record and if they do accomplish the perfect season he will congradulate them for doing it. He has not said they dont deserve it, but I will concede that how he said what he said, by comparing it to the bonds thing, can be interupted as him implying that they did it by cheating.
___________

Shmessy: Huh, ya think so? how about the part where he has had several opportunities to clarify that "misinterpretation" and each time he has not done so. In fact (hey, Shula Guy, here comes copy and paste #3 of that quote to to Bianchi that you continually claim you do not see) his latest is:

"I guess you got the same thing as putting an asterisk by Barry Bonds' home run record."

When asked about those remarks Thursday, Shula toned it down some, but he didn't exactly apologize.

"I didn't say anything that wasn't true back then, but I think I was the wrong guy to say it," Shula said. "When I said it, it was perceived as being self-serving. Maybe somebody else should have said it. Hey, I wasn't the one who fined Belichick $500,000 and took away a first-round draft pick. The NFL did that. Now ask yourself: Why did they do it?"
______________________

ten characters

 

[Seacoast Fan]

So show where Shula says an asterisk should be placed in front of the patriots season? You cant because it does not exist. He never said it all he did was compare it to the Bonds situation in which people were calling for an asterisk next to his record. What Shula meant was that it was a shame that a team capable of so much got caught doing something that ultimatly detracts from thier accomplishments of thier season. Some of you seem to feel the need to make more of it then you should. You all come off with this big chip on your shoulder. Im a Dolphins fan and Im telling you I think its been overblown. You all arnt helping it go away by throwing around insults at everyone else in the leaugue, both retired an active. Get over it already! Some of you have spent this entire season looking for any rule infraction you could fine to over exagerate and pointback to spygate and say "see its not just us, the nfl just hates us". Do you realize how petty that makes you look as a group. Trust me I know I have been a Dolphins fan a long time and year after year this stupid controversy and name slinging happens to us and its dumb and meaningless. If you win on feb 3rd congradulations you will have listen to how your team is a bunch of argoant aholes who live in thier past glory just because they will be proud and celebrate an achievment that few can boast of. Oh and when the next team comes along to tie the record please dont try to sell to me that the guys holding the record will be cheering for that team to join them in thier circle of accomplishment. Becareful about using the hypocrit when you and your team may find themselves being labled the same thing in the future.

If you think this helps your case, well, you should just stop before you hurt yourself.

 

[brusaxpeyton]

I always thought that Shula was overrated as coach. He had one of the best QBs of our time and couldn't get it done. Some people blame Marino, but Shula never put Marino in position to win.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Instead of using the word 'idiot' while making yourself look like one, perhaps you could simply admit that there is a disconnect between the claims made by PonyExpress and the actual statements made by Goodell. After all, the words typed by PonyExpress



mean something far different from what you're trying to belittle me about now.

Sure - I'll go along with that:

"Goodell explcityly stated" that the unviewed videotape had no impact on the Jets game.

Ergo - it could not have had any impact on any subsequent games.

As I've illustrated, reasonable people need not have the Commissioner explain something that logically needs no explanation.

There is no even slightly reasonable way anyone could suggest how an unviewed videotape had any additional bearing on the remainder of the season.

What distinction you're trying to make is beyond me.

But Pony's point is correct, as any reasonable person would understand - that Goodell, by stating explicitly that the videotape had no bearing on the game in question, thereby certified that the videotape had no bearing on the rest of the season.

Do you really need me to go back again to describe why this is so?

I think I must have erred in thinking you were making a point about football, when in fact, all you were trying to do is make an ***h0le out of yourself by telling PonyExpress he misquoted Goodell.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sure - I'll go along with that:

"Goodell explcityly stated" that the unviewed videotape had no impact on the Jets game.

Ergo - it could not have had any impact on any subsequent games.

As I've illustrated, reasonable people need not have the Commissioner explain something that logically needs no explanation.

There is no even slightly reasonable way anyone could suggest how an unviewed videotape had any additional bearing on the remainder of the season.

What distinction you're trying to make is beyond me.

But Pony's point is correct, as any reasonable person would understand - that Goodell, by stating explicitly that the videotape had no bearing on the game in question, thereby certified that the videotape had no bearing on the rest of the season.

Do you really need me to go back again to describe why this is so?

I think I must have erred in thinking you were making a point about football, when in fact, all you were trying to do is make an ***h0le out of yourself by telling PonyExpress he misquoted Goodell.

1.) Pony's point was not correct, so far as I know

2.) I asked a simple question: was there a link to a time when Goodell actually said what Pony claimed he did.

3.) No matter how you try to turn this around, you are the one being the ass for arguing something that you know is wrong.

 

[TommyD4207]

You win shmessy I give up. I have read the article. If you want to think he said something that he did not so be it. You and I simply see things differently and niether of us will find common ground on the others terms. Much respect to you. Have a good one and good luck to you on feb3rd.

Neither.

Typical troll.
This was the point in the discussion where you had to show your ass and say you were wrong.

Instead, you make another lame "you're wrong" remark, tuck your tail between your legs and leave.

What a ***** move.

 

[JoeSixPat]

1.) Pony's point was not correct, so far as I know

Deus - one simple question for you - not Goodell.

True or False:

The unviewed video of the first quarter of the Jets game offered the Patriots no strategic advantage in that game, or any other game this season.

Be honest.

 

[TommyD4207]

Im guessing your a willfork fan since you both seem to thrive on going for the cheap shots

My favorite player.
Is that you running away again?

 

[Deus Irae]

Deus - one simple question for you - not Goodell.

True or False:

The unviewed video of the first quarter of the Jets game offered the Patriots no strategic advantage in that game, or any other game this season.

Be honest.

The Commissioner found no advantage was gained. Most of the writers, coaches and players that I saw talking or writing about it said it would have been all but impossible to gain any in-game advantage via the method being used. I don't think an advantage was gained, and I wouldn't really care if one was gained, since it's nothing that can't be done without a camera. So what? That doesn't make Pony's comment any more accurate, and it doesn't make you right for defending an apparently false (unless it was a statement made that was NOT the press release) statement. Furthermore, that was not what Pony's claim was. He claimed that Goodell explicitly 'said' something I've never seen reported as him 'saying'. I asked for a cite to it and none has been forthcoming.

It doesn't matter if an advantage was gained. It was still something that cost the team cash and a pick, and the coach cash as well. Do you have any hard evidence that Denver's salary cap shenanigans helped them to win any games? Do you have hard evidence that Merriman's being 'roided out helped San Diego win any games? No, you don't.

What matters is that the Commissioner blasted it and came down on it the way he did. Something that should have drawn nothing more than a small fine ended up being treated as if the Patriots were rigging games by bribing officials or something, and that happened because of the way Bozo the Commissioner mishandled things. It didn't happen because Don Shula wanted his team to be the league's only undefeated team. Read the release:

“This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid longstanding rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field,”

There's your issue, not Shula's wrongful comment about an asterisk or desire to maintain his status as the coach of the only team in NFL history to go undefeated.

 

[PatriotsReign]

2.) Shula didn't break the rule, just as Belichick didn't break it when he came from New York and Parcells didn't break it when he went from New England to New York. The tampering rule that is cited is broken by the team, not the coach. Furthermore, the rule regarding Shula wasn't broken in the same year that the Dolphins went undefeated. Lastly, I don't buy that "rule breaking is rule breaking" crap, and neither does any sports league, or this country, save in the generic sense. It's why some malfeasances are more heavily penalized than others.

They both lost 1st round draft picks, thus the violations are the same in severity. Let's remember, the media and fans don't determine the severity of rule violations, they penalties levied do that...as you alluded to.

BTW Dues...."malfeasances"?? you gotta be kiddin bro! We're discussing sports, not legal topics. Why would you choose to use that word on a Pats board?

 

[PatriotsReign]

I think you drink too much koolaide.

1. When did bb becomes the winnest coach in nfl history?

2. bb is regarded on a higher level by you but not by the majority.

3. So by your logic everytime a team gets a penality called on them they are just as guilty as your pats because they broke the rules. Theres no degrees its just black and white.

1. I never said he was the winningest coach in history. I'm just restating what many of the experts are saying (steve sabol for one)...that when all is said & done, Belichik will likely be viewed as one of the top 3, if not THE best coach in NFL history.

2. BB is regarded on a higher level by almost all the experts and pundits as well as by many of the players in the game today. If you haven't heard this, you haven't paid attention to much this year!

3. If the team is penalized the same, the infraction is the same. So if a team lost a 1st round draft pick, the infractions were equal in severity. We can't compare the fines because they are relative to each period.

 

[Jangles]

Ive always liked the Pats but they have never been my favorite team. After I found out about the rule they broke and heard Don Shulas remark about the asterisk I decided I was forever FOR the Pats and would always despise the Dolphins.

I hope Brady *****slaps that old bastard with all his Super Bowl rings on.

 

[JoeSixPat]

The Commissioner found no advantage was gained. Most of the writers, coaches and players that I saw talking or writing about it said it would have been all but impossible to gain any in-game advantage via the method being used. I don't think an advantage was gained, and I wouldn't really care if one was gained, since it's nothing that can't be done without a camera. So what? That doesn't make Pony's comment any more accurate, and it doesn't make you right for defending an apparently false (unless it was a statement made that was NOT the press release) statement. Furthermore, that was not what Pony's claim was. He claimed that Goodell explicitly 'said' something I've never seen reported as him 'saying'. I asked for a cite to it and none has been forthcoming.

It doesn't matter if an advantage was gained. It was still something that cost the team cash and a pick, and the coach cash as well. Do you have any hard evidence that Denver's salary cap shenanigans helped them to win any games? Do you have hard evidence that Merriman's being 'roided out helped San Diego win any games? No, you don't.

What matters is that the Commissioner blasted it and came down on it the way he did. Something that should have drawn nothing more than a small fine ended up being treated as if the Patriots were rigging games by bribing officials or something, and that happened because of the way Bozo the Commissioner mishandled things. It didn't happen because Don Shula wanted his team to be the league's only undefeated team. Read the release:

There's your issue, not Shula's wrongful comment about an asterisk or desire to maintain his status as the coach of the only team in NFL history to go undefeated.

I'm not sure where the reading comprehension problems are, but I specifically asked for YOUR response to a simple true or false question about the entire season - not just one game.

Let's try this again - so you can't weasel out:

True or False:

The unviewed video of the first quarter of Game One could not have offered any additional competitive advantage for Games 2-16.

What is so difficult about that for you to understand?

If you or Shula can show how an unviewed video of one quarter of game one could have, under any imaginable circumstances, have an impact on the rest of the season, please enlighten us.

If you can't answer that question then don't bother responding.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

...
What matters is that the Commissioner blasted it and came down on it the way he did. Something that should have drawn nothing more than a small fine ended up being treated as if the Patriots were rigging games by bribing officials or something, and that happened because of the way Bozo the Commissioner mishandled things. ....

100% with you on this. Well said. Thanks to the Comm, media, our FO, and so-called experts, the interpretation of the rule breaking by a good % of the people outside the NE region has kept us, in their view, near or in the same ball park of 'cheaters'.

Which is why it is aggravating when people in the field, especially reputed personalities who should know better, make such careless - or maybe on purpose - statements that seem to vindicate this interpretation.

Now, can I hope that after the season is over, BB or our FO come out with some PR or interview that tries to clear the air and give our viewpoint so that we can put a stop to all *s?

 

[JoeSixPat]

100% with you on this. Well said. Thanks to the Comm, media, our FO, and so-called experts, the interpretation of the rule breaking by a good % of the people outside the NE region has kept us, in their view, near or in the same ball park of 'cheaters'.

Which is why it is aggravating when people in the field, especially reputed personalities who should know better, make such careless - or maybe on purpose - statements that seem to vindicate this interpretation.

Now, can I hope that after the season is over, BB or our FO come out with some PR or interview that tries to clear the air and give our viewpoint so that we can put a stop to all *s?

Yeah - except Deus seems to believe that its possible an unviewed video that played no role in the actual game it was taped in DID give the Patriots an illegal competitive advantage in subsequent games.

I don't expect other ignorant fans to understand this simple concept, but its frustrating when supposed Patriots fans can't either.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

1
2.) Shula didn't break the rule, just as Belichick didn't break it when he came from New York and Parcells didn't break it when he went from New England to New York. The tampering rule that is cited is broken by the team, not the coach. .

Yeah, he (Shula) did as it takes two to tamper, the one who does the tampering ( the team) and the person under contract (in this case Shula) who agreed to coach the Dolphins while still under contract with the Colts. When they had communications regarding him becoming coach of the Dolphins, both parties violated the rules. The Dolphins tampered with a person under contract to another team and Shula violated the rules by talking with and agreeing to coach the Dolphins while still under contract with the Colts.
No matter how you parse it, Shula was just as guilty and the league obviously thought so, taking away a first round pick.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yeah - except Deus seems to believe that its possible an unviewed video that played no role in the actual game it was taped in DID give the Patriots an illegal competitive advantage in subsequent games.

I don't expect other ignorant fans to understand this simple concept, but its frustrating when supposed Patriots fans can't either.

Actually, if you go back and read my posts, you'll see that I don't believe any advantage was gained and I don't care if it was. In fact, I said just that in post #160. What's really frustrating is watching people who refuse to comprehend basic English because doing so would mean that they'd have to admit they've been wrong.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yeah, he (Shula) did as it takes two to tamper, the one who does the tampering ( the team) and the person under contract (in this case Shula) who agreed to coach the Dolphins while still under contract with the Colts. When they had communications regarding him becoming coach of the Dolphins, both parties violated the rules. The Dolphins tampered with a person under contract to another team and Shula violated the rules by talking with and agreeing to coach the Dolphins while still under contract with the Colts.
No matter how you parse it, Shula was just as guilty and the league obviously thought so, taking away a first round pick.

No, sorry, that's not how the rule works.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

No, sorry, that's not how the rule works.

You previously wrote...
>>The tampering rule that is cited is broken by the team, not the coach. >>


So you're saying that Shula didn't do anything wrong?