Brady beats the NFL

[Cusefan0307]

Philly lost that game because their QB didn't play well and couldn't run a hurryup offense when down 10 points
Pittsburgh lost because the Pats returned punt, blocked a FG and scored a TD and the Pitt QB was awful.
Colts lost because their QB couldn't beat the Pats D.
Rams claim their plays were stole when they lost because their QB threw a pick-6, their WR fumbled and gave the Pats 14 points.

Spygate was Belichick being arrogant when the NFL sent a memo saying stop filming on the sideline. He continued filming on the sideline instead of the okay area. The team was penalized and lost a 1st round pick. Teams wanted more when that was an unprecedented penalty. The Broncos cheated the Salary Cap in their 2 Super Bowl winning seasons and only lost a 3rd round pick.

Deflategate was about rehabbing Goodell's image. Everyone hates the Patriots so he over-penalized them for something they could never prove. The team ate the penalties in a quid pro quo with Goodell to get Brady's suspension wiped. Goodell did not do this and so a Federal Judge looked at the case and wiped it out because he didn't see anything to penalize for what the NFL did.

Goodell is not on thin ice that ESPN piece shows the owners love what he did. One owner said this Deflategate stuff was a makeup for Spygate which is a joke when they aren't related at all and Wells cleared the team of wrongdoing.
Goodell has two owners who hate him now Benson-Saints and now Kraft family-Patriots.

Goodell is a smart politician.

Let's not forget Cowher/Jimmy Johnson used to video tape as well. I don't see anybody crying the 06 Steelers and 92/93 Cowboys are cheaters.

 

[Orangeman]

Not surprisingly I disagree about Kraft/Goodell...I imagine they are best of buddies laughing all the way to the bank behind the scenes.

They pulled another one over the heads of the Media and the general public.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist!

 

[Ward]

Philly lost that game because their QB didn't play well and couldn't run a hurryup offense when down 10 points
Pittsburgh lost because the Pats returned punt, blocked a FG and scored a TD and the Pitt QB was awful.
Colts lost because their QB couldn't beat the Pats D.
Rams claim their plays were stole when they lost because their QB threw a pick-6, their WR fumbled and gave the Pats 14 points.

Spygate was Belichick being arrogant when the NFL sent a memo saying stop filming on the sideline. He continued filming on the sideline instead of the okay area. The team was penalized and lost a 1st round pick. Teams wanted more when that was an unprecedented penalty. The Broncos cheated the Salary Cap in their 2 Super Bowl winning seasons and only lost a 3rd round pick.

Deflategate was about rehabbing Goodell's image. Everyone hates the Patriots so he over-penalized them for something they could never prove. The team ate the penalties in a quid pro quo with Goodell to get Brady's suspension wiped. Goodell did not do this and so a Federal Judge looked at the case and wiped it out because he didn't see anything to penalize for what the NFL did.

Goodell is not on thin ice that ESPN piece shows the owners love what he did. One owner said this Deflategate stuff was a makeup for Spygate which is a joke when they aren't related at all and Wells cleared the team of wrongdoing.
Goodell has two owners who hate him now Benson-Saints and now Kraft family-Patriots.

Yea I mean I read Simmons tweets and understood what they were attempting to communicate to me so I didn't need them repeated but said differently. I just didn't agree with it. You say Colts lost because their QB couldn't beat the Pats D when they say they would film Manning's hand signals and corresponding signals on the side to help predict what he was checking into and out of. To me that seems related to why you say the Colts lost. You say Eagles lost because McNabb didn't play well and they didn't do the hurry up effectively when down 10 points. The article claims the Eagles were perplexed when Brady marched down and scored a TD on 3 of 4 drives where Philly used a seldom used defense as part of their game plan and NE looked like they were expecting it. Maybe Philly isn't in that situation if NE isn't so potent against that defensive plan. You say Steelers lost because Pitt QB was awful and Hines Ward said NE defense was calling out their signals and play calls. That contributes to a QB playing awful. My point is those factors don't occur in a vacuum and very well could have been impacted by these allegations.

Before this report I would've agreed with you on the Spygate paragraph but it seems like BB was doing much more than what they said he was in the initial report. It's just hard for me to believe the Pats were acting as innocent as they claim if they were having their team representatives that were filming cover their Pats logo's or lie about working for the Patriots. If it is legal and a widespread thing why go through as much trouble to hide it as they did.

I don't think the judge wiped away Brady's suspension because he found him innocent. Unless I'm mistaken, the suspension was nullified because it showed Brady didn't get a fair process that he should have under the CBA. Which I agreed with. For example, Goodell limiting access to certain evidence/testimony and limiting Brady's representation from fully presenting his case. I'm not saying Brady was or wasn't innocent I'm just saying that I think that was the basis for the judges decision. I'm glad Brady won the case and finally brought some eyes to the whole disciplinary process in the NFL.

I'm not so sure it is as big of a lovefest for Goodell and the other owners as you think. They have to be getting sick of his repeated image of incompetency. I would be shocked if the information in this report is new to the owners around the league but if I were an owner and saw that I would have a big problem with this. I thought Martz comments were pretty damning in particular.

 

[Alsacs]

Yea I mean I read Simmons tweets and understood what they were attempting to communicate to me so I didn't need them repeated but said differently. I just didn't agree with it. You say Colts lost because their QB couldn't beat the Pats D when they say they would film Manning's hand signals and corresponding signals on the side to help predict what he was checking into and out of. To me that seems related to why you say the Colts lost. You say Eagles lost because McNabb didn't play well and they didn't do the hurry up effectively when down 10 points. The article claims the Eagles were perplexed when Brady marched down and scored a TD on 3 of 4 drives where Philly used a seldom used defense as part of their game plan and NE looked like they were expecting it. Maybe Philly isn't in that situation if NE isn't so potent against that defensive plan. You say Steelers lost because Pitt QB was awful and Hines Ward said NE defense was calling out their signals and play calls. That contributes to a QB playing awful. My point is those factors don't occur in a vacuum and very well could have been impacted by these allegations.

Before this report I would've agreed with you on the Spygate paragraph but it seems like BB was doing much more than what they said he was in the initial report. It's just hard for me to believe the Pats were acting as innocent as they claim if they were having their team representatives that were filming cover their Pats logo's or lie about working for the Patriots. If it is legal and a widespread thing why go through as much trouble to hide it as they did.

I don't think the judge wiped away Brady's suspension because he found him innocent. Unless I'm mistaken, the suspension was nullified because it showed Brady didn't get a fair process that he should have under the CBA. Which I agreed with. For example, Goodell limiting access to certain evidence/testimony and limiting Brady's representation from fully presenting his case. I'm not saying Brady was or wasn't innocent I'm just saying that I think that was the basis for the judges decision. I'm glad Brady won the case and finally brought some eyes to the whole disciplinary process in the NFL.

I'm not so sure it is as big of a lovefest for Goodell and the other owners as you think. They have to be getting sick of his repeated image of incompetency. I would be shocked if the information in this report is new to the owners around the league but if I were an owner and saw that I would have a big problem with this. I thought Martz comments were pretty damning in particular.

The judge couldn't rule on the facts because he would be overturned for that. However it is pretty clear he thought the NFL had no proof Brady cheated and he said that during his questioning of Daniel Nash.

Your questioning of the Pats give the team no credit for winning those games and they only won Because of cheating. That is not right. The team has won a higher percentage of games after Spygate than before. If the cheating is why they won before why they have won more since then? That ESPN piece is rehash of 8 years ago and new rumors without evidence. Think whatever you want the team won those games no matter what.

 

[Alsacs]

The major take away from that piece IMO. Is the 3 anonymous owners basically confirming this is payback.
Let me name the owners IMO Jim Irsay, Woody Johnson, Jeffrey Lurie. Them along with Steve Biscotti, Stephen Ross want to scalp the Patriots.
The NFL owners are the ones who pushed Goodell and Goodell used this case to rehab his image after screwing up Ray Rice. Do people in this thread believe Goodell when he says the NFL front office had never seen the Rice punch tape before TMZ released it.

 

[Alsacs]

BTW the author of that article said the 180% opposite in December.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/b-s-report-don-van-natta-jr-2/

44 minutes into the podcast. Exact quote

However today's piece

Yeah ESPN doesn't have an agenda.

 

[Ward]

The major take away from that piece IMO. Is the 3 anonymous owners basically confirming this is payback.
Let me name the owners IMO Jim Irsay, Woody Johnson, Jeffrey Lurie. Them along with Steve Biscotti, Stephen Ross want to scalp the Patriots.
The NFL owners are the ones who pushed Goodell and Goodell used this case to rehab his image after screwing up Ray Rice. Do people in this thread believe Goodell when he says the NFL front office had never seen the Rice punch tape before TMZ released it.

The answer to the question posed in your last sentence is a resounding no, which hurts the Patriots in the scope of today's ESPN report. Why should we believe, after Goodell handled everything else so poorly, that he was being truthful about the severity of Spygate when there is some real gray area around it now/always.

In regards to your reply to my other post that the Pats would have lost all of those games if it weren't for cheating is not what I was saying at all. That was the classic hyperbole filled reply Pats fans tend to give which hurts their credibility in communicating otherwise valid points. Every piece doesn't have to be tied to an absolute result. Obviously with Brady under center the Pats very well could have won many of those games regardless of if they did the alleged things or not. You say why did they win so much after they were caught when I could easily say they never won another SB until they were allegedly caught breaking another rule that gave them a competitive advantage.

Everything isn't an absolute one way or the other. The Pats could have violated rules and basic sportsmanship/ethics in their incredible run they've been on the last 10-15 years that undoubtedly gave them a material edge in very big games. They also have had great players and great teams that won a lot of games and would have regardless of if they did anything like they're being accused of. The problem the league and many fans have is that there are quite a few fan bases and franchises who will never know what could've been if the playing field was level.

 

[dasher]

If you think the Patriots were sufficiently punished for what took place as described in that article well we just disagree. They destroyed the evidence because the alternative was obviously to void Super Bowl championships since they were won dishonestly (if the article is true, which I'm sure it is).

And when you read that article, it becomes abundantly clear that the organization is capable of having a "system" where some ball-handlers are responsible for deflating footballs, in a way that defeats the system, implying they know they're breaking the rules.

Because I believe in integrity I choose to not honor the Super Bowls the Patriots have won under Belichek.

There, I said it.

It was the stiffest punishment in the history of the NFL at that time. You can believe what you want as far as the super bowls is concerned. Quite frankly, it says more about you than the Pats. Do you give credit to Pitt's super bowl wins? They were in to Roids before any other team. The players got the rings but most have suffered and can't enjoy them. This is so much ado about nothing by a bunch of sore losers. I will ask again, is Syracuse hoop a dirty program? Should other fans discount all of our wins? We have been punished twice just like the Pats. I guess it should work both ways, right?

 

[dasher]

BTW the author of that article said the 180% opposite in December.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/b-s-report-don-van-natta-jr-2/

44 minutes into the podcast. Exact quote

However today's piece

Yeah ESPN doesn't have an agenda.

If teams don't change their signals from game to game, they deserve to have them stolen.

 

[Ward]

BTW the author of that article said the 180% opposite in December.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/b-s-report-don-van-natta-jr-2/

44 minutes into the podcast. Exact quote

However today's piece

Yeah ESPN doesn't have an agenda.

Both of those excerpts to me have pretty much the same end game. The specifics of the severity of the Pats actions and how much those games were impacted by them was a direct threat to the image of the league which would potentially end up harming all of the owners pockets if league popularity suffered. The first one says the videos had to be destroyed because they threatened the game itself and threatened livelihoods. Second one ends with saying if that gets out, that hurts your business. Technically the owners all agreed to keep it quiet but it doesn't mean it was an amicable agreement.

FWIW I've been telling people in Boston since February that ESPN likes to run with stories and pointed out multiple examples from the Bernie Fine situation. I agree full heartedly that ESPN creates news and pushes agendas I just don't see it in those two excerpts.

 

[Alsacs]

Both of those excerpts to me have pretty much the same end game. The specifics of the severity of the Pats actions and how much those games were impacted by them was a direct threat to the image of the league which would potentially end up harming all of the owners pockets if league popularity suffered. The first one says the videos had to be destroyed because they threatened the game itself and threatened livelihoods. Second one ends with saying if that gets out, that hurts your business. Technically the owners all agreed to keep it quiet but it doesn't mean it was an amicable agreement.

FWIW I've been telling people in Boston since February that ESPN likes to run with stories and pointed out multiple examples from the Bernie Fine situation. I agree full heartedly that ESPN creates news and pushes agendas I just don't see it in those two excerpts.

Are you serious?
Clip one is saying the teams discussed it and while weren't happy agreed to destroy the tapes.
Clip two is saying Roger ordered the destruction of the tapes and worked with Kraft/Belichick to cover it up.

It is agenda driven journalism. I don't think that is hard to find here.

 

[Ward]

Are you serious?
Clip one is saying the teams discussed it and while weren't happy agreed to destroy the tapes.
Clip two is saying Roger ordered the destruction of the tapes and worked with Kraft/Belichick to cover it up.

It is agenda driven journalism. I don't think that is hard to find here.

Not really, excerpt 1 says Goodell presided over a meeting and owners agreed to destroy the tapes because it would threaten livelihoods. Excerpt 2 says in a meeting that Goodell ordered the tapes be destroyed and owners didn't like it but knew it couldn't get out because that hurts your business. It says Goodell ordered the tapes to be destroyed, not that he destroyed them and then told them they were destroyed. Both excerpts are just a different way of saying Goodell told the owners his decision was to destroy the tapes because it was the best course of action to limit the damage done to the league as whole. Owners then agreed because at the end of the day these are all brilliant businessmen who are billionaires for a reason and it's because they know not to let emotion cloud their judgment and potentially cost them hundreds of millions.

 

[Alsacs]

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcnorth/post/_/id/77600/cowher-dismisses-impact-of-spygate

I guess Bill Cowher's opinion from the past doesn't matter. Since he isn't upset by Spygate when his teams lost to the Patriots.

 

[Orangeman]

What did the NFL game operations manual say? Please don't try saying Belichick was the first and only person who ever video taped opposed defenses. Google Jimmy Johnson on this subject.

I don't see the language you and Patriots' fans keep referring to...I see a rule that you can't video record team signals, especially from unapproved areas, for use during a game to gain an advantage. That doesn't seem to ever have changed. Of course it doesn't explicitly state to my knowledge (because no rule is ever absolutely explicit about every potential use) that you can't use those recordings for FUTURE games, which the Patriots seemed to take as an opportunity to build a vast library of video on opponents (particularly divisional opponents they knew they'd see more often).

I see a warning letter that seems to imply that certain franchises are violating the spirit of the rules

So, I don't think this issue of whether it was legal to tape opponents' signals from the sideline angle during games was legal for future use is closed. I think the Patriots violated the spirit of the rules and thus the rules.

 

[Alsacs]

Breaking news from ESPN. They have uncovered the culprit of the Sony hacks. Here is the gotcha proof.

 

[Alsacs]

Cusefan0307 listen to this my friend. John Madden back in 1992. Where was the outrage?

 

[Orangeman]

You seem torn between the "Patriots don't cheat" and "it doesn't matter cause everyone does" arguments

I don't think this is going to die down, this all seems too big to me...

I still can't believe, the year after Brady got hurt and missed some games, the NFL created a rule that a defensive player must control his body while he's racing past another large human such that he doesn't crunch the QB below the knee and risk injury.

Not to say most owners weren't happy since they invest so much in their QBs, but that's just funny

 

[shandeezy7]

I know these things lambaste every team, but my god, the vitriol in this one:

Why Your Team Sucks: 2015 New England Patriots

 

[CuseFaninVT]

I know these things lambaste every team, but my god, the vitriol in this one:

Why Your Team Sucks: 2015 New England Patriots

that's pretty bad.

I really enjoyed the Ballghazi reference. That's funny.

And there is one paragraph in there that is without a doubt talking about Alsacs . I'll leave it to you all to figure out which one I'm talking about.

*Disclaimer, I don't view him as the word used in the paragraph.

 

[Alsacs]

that's pretty bad.

I really enjoyed the Ballghazi reference. That's funny.

And there is one paragraph in there that is without a doubt talking about Alsacs . I'll leave it to you all to figure out which one I'm talking about.

*Disclaimer, I don't view him as the word used in the paragraph.

If you wanna troll me go ahead. I am going to be nice and say nothing more. You are a hater of the Patriots and I honestly don't care what you think. Call me whatever you want.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

If you wanna troll me go ahead. I am going to be nice and say nothing more. You are a hater of the Patriots and I honestly don't care what you think. Call me whatever you want.

Come on now. You know you are a truther like the article mentioned. I can't even imagine how much money you could have made if you had been billing clients instead of doing your little Tom Brady defense research.

And I'm just having some fun with you. I spent quite a bit of time antagonizing you during this, and I don't even like the NFL, so maybe I'm the real 'idiot'. That's the word they used that I don't believe references you.

 

[Alsacs]

People want to troll go ahead. I honestly don't care. People can think whatever they want neither side is moving. Nothing beyond Belichick violating the videotaping rules have ever been proven.
If people want to think the Patriots are cheaters that is fine.

 

[Cusefan0307]

It's still legal to tape signals now, you can only be in designated locations though. The Pats/belichick were arrogant and decided to film where they were told they couldn't, and it made people angry for whatever reason. This is much ado about nothing.

I'm not sure if people aretrolling Alsacs actually believe the Pats are cheaters or not, but I would gather most of you didn't know it is actually legal to tape the signals. It doesn't make any difference in this era though, as defensive signals are sent in through headset to the defensive captain.

This whole thing is just insane. It's no different when Minnesota thought the Saints were targeting Favre in the 09 title game, after supposedly Payton and Gregg Williams paid defensive players for LEGAL hits. I'm still upset Sean Payton missed an entire year. He should sue the NFL now to just like Brady for damages.

The NFL has some incredibly sore losing franchises, especially the Colts.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

It's still legal to tape signals now, you can only be in designated locations though. The Pats/belichick were arrogant and decided to film where they were told they couldn't, and it made people angry for whatever reason. This is much ado about nothing.

I'm not sure if people aretrolling Alsacs actually believe the Pats are cheaters or not, but I would gather most of you didn't know it is actually legal to tape the signals. It doesn't make any difference in this era though, as defensive signals are sent in through headset to the defensive captain.

This whole thing is just insane. It's no different when Minnesota thought the Saints were targeting Favre in the 09 title game, after supposedly Payton and Gregg Williams paid defensive players for LEGAL hits. I'm still upset Sean Payton missed an entire year. He should sue the NFL now to just like Brady for damages.

The NFL has some incredibly sore losing franchises, especially the Colts.

I am trolling Alsacs and I absolutely believe the Pats cheated.

If it's legal to tape the signals, why have your employees dress up in NFL Films t-shirts? Come on man, these guys took cheating to an entirely new level - stealing the 1st 20 scripted play sheets, etc, etc.

Play dress-up
Have your employees suit up in NFL Films shirts so they can more easily film opposing teams. Great idea, right? Indeed it is. So great that when Belichick and Adams were with the Browns organization, they employed this strategy to film sideline huddles and grease boards from behind the bench. The Patriots employees tasked with doing this would claim they were with Kraft Productions if they got caught.

http://fansided.com/2015/09/09/how-to-cheat-in-nfl-methods/

Then there was the videotaping. Mangini knew the Patriots did it, so he would have three Jets coaches signal in plays: One coach's signal would alert the players to which coach was actually signaling in the play. Still, Mangini saw it as a sign of disrespect that Belichick taped their signals -- "He's pissing in my face," he told a confidant -- and wanted it to end. Before the 2007 opener, sources say, he warned various Patriots staffers, "We know you do this. Don't do it in our house." Tannenbaum, who declined comment, told team security to remove any unauthorized cameramen on the field.

During the first half, Jets security monitored Estrella, who held a camera and wore a polo shirt with a taped-over Patriots logo under a red media vest that said: NFL PHOTOGRAPHER 138. With the backing of Jets owner Woody Johnson and Tannenbaum, Jets security alerted NFL security, a step Mangini acknowledged publicly later that he never wanted. Shortly before halftime, security encircled and then confronted Estrella. He said he was with "Kraft Productions." They took him into a small room off the stadium's tunnel, confiscated his camera and tape, and made him wait. He was sweating. Someone gave Estrella water, and he was shaking so severely that he spilled it. "He was s---ting a brick," a source says.

On Monday morning, Estrella's camera and the spy tape were at NFL headquarters on Park Avenue.

That's from the ESPN piece.

 

[BuffOrange]

Yea I mean I read Simmons tweets and understood what they were attempting to communicate to me so I didn't need them repeated but said differently. I just didn't agree with it. You say Colts lost because their QB couldn't beat the Pats D when they say they would film Manning's hand signals and corresponding signals on the side to help predict what he was checking into and out of. To me that seems related to why you say the Colts lost. You say Eagles lost because McNabb didn't play well and they didn't do the hurry up effectively when down 10 points. The article claims the Eagles were perplexed when Brady marched down and scored a TD on 3 of 4 drives where Philly used a seldom used defense as part of their game plan and NE looked like they were expecting it. Maybe Philly isn't in that situation if NE isn't so potent against that defensive plan. You say Steelers lost because Pitt QB was awful and Hines Ward said NE defense was calling out their signals and play calls. That contributes to a QB playing awful. My point is those factors don't occur in a vacuum and very well could have been impacted by these allegations.

You seem torn between the "Patriots don't cheat" and "it doesn't matter cause everyone does" arguments

[crickets]. If I wanted to hire a political consultant to move goalposts I would start and end my search in Boston. Every thread everywhere from reddit to football guys is flooded with 90% Pats fans (a big red flag of insecurity), basically a million Alacs, dodging/ducking/distracting. It's unbelievable. Lose a close game = cheating doesn't work. Win in a blowout = cheating didn't matter. Win a white knuckler = opponent should've played a perfect game which nobody not even NE (who blew 2score leads vs Car/STL) has ever done and btw sour grapes if anyone speaks up. Dude posing as NFL films employee and crapping his pants when caught (perfectly normal, everyone does it) = so what, Madden said something 25yrs ago. Great, I think that about covers all the bases. There's really no possible downside to cheating then.
The other ***ed up part is that article makes Goodell & the league look worse than the cheaters. It's sickening that they just destroyed evidence & their explanation is pathetic.