Super Bowl 51 - Illegitimate*

[Koma]

vancan'tpatsfan is a better name for a troll.

Can you imagine thinking this past Wednesday "You know what I'm going to do today? I'm going to create an ID on a Patriots message board, pretend I'm a fan, and troll them." Imagine thinking that and then actually doing it. What a sad commentary on someone's life.

 

[PatsBoy12]

They should make the Lombardi smaller since anyone winning the Super Bowl other than the Pats in 2016-2017 will have done so in a handicapped league.

I have never been one of those boasting about the Patriots. But something changed last night. By hamstringing the Patriots due to hate and frustration the Patriots effectively broke the league.

(Really, it was broken when the NFL put them through that BS PR leak nightmare 2 weeks prior to the Super Bowl.)

Either way, the discussion of the greatest franchise of all time stops here. To win so much that the other league owners go full Randolph and Mortimer Duke on you to try and hamstring your team - makes you the greatest, without dispute.

I think it's funny, the first legitimate NFL super bowl is likely 10+ years away. When the effect of losing a first round draft pick finally dissipates.

I'm not disagreeing, but what if the Pats win the SB? What if they win a few times within the next 10 years? What you're saying inherently assumes it will be another team hoisting the trophy. Not your opening statement, but a lot of the rest of it.

Nonetheless, I'm not disagreeing that entirely. It hurts the Pats. But I just don't see how losing one first round pick this year necessarily hamstrings them for as long as 10 years . . . not when we have the greatest coach in the history of the game. What will probably hamstring the Pats a bit more than that is Brady's retirement . . . although I do have confidence in Jimmy G. I really do!

 

[SteveGrogan]

I'm not disagreeing, but what if the Pats win the SB? What if they win a few times within the next 10 years? What you're saying inherently assumes it will be another team hoisting the trophy. Not your opening statement, but a lot of the rest of it.

Nonetheless, I'm not disagreeing that entirely. It hurts the Pats. But I just don't see how losing one first round pick this year necessarily hamstrings them for as long as 10 years . . . not when we have the greatest coach in the history of the game. What will probably hamstring the Pats a bit more than that is Brady's retirement . . . although I do have confidence in Jimmy G. I really do!

Imagine this paradigm:
The Patriots are letting everyone go ahead and pick players in the draft and they won't even start until the second time around, and they say **** you league, we're going to win the SuperBowl anyway.

Now, I know it's obviously not their choice and that the NFL that did this. But the NFL acted in reaction to public opinion, and some disgruntled former team staff. The NFL handicapped the league, letting the other teams get a head start.

A Patriots win in the super bowl would come in a year where they spot everyone else a first round draft pick. The Patriots have a taller order. By extension, every other team has a shorter order.

Which means this Super Bowl's Lombardi has just slightly less shine to it for any other team. The mountain was shorter than the one climbed right before it, because one team was given a different set of tools to work with, fewer tools. And one of the most important tools is missing.

The biggest irony, is that had deflated footballs even existed they would have been much less of an advantage than losing a first round draft pick is a disadvantage.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

There were two 2nd US Circuit Appeals Court judges who stated that its well established to assume someone's guilt when they destroy evidence that has been ordered to be produced:

"Finally, any reasonable litigant would understand that the destruction of evidence, revealed just days before the start of the arbitration proceedings, would be an important issue. It is well established that the law permits a trier of fact to infer that a party who deliberately destroys relevant evidence the party had an obligation to produce did so in order to conceal damaging information from the adjudicator."

It's too bad that Tom didn't allow all the evidence to be reviewed because I suppose your 12 year old's experiment might have possibly been considered then.

Your watching too much BSPN. Do yourself a favor and learn the REAL facts. I recommend starting with the Wells report