|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 11, 2018 20:25:49 GMT
1. Patriots fans have repeatedly used the weak excuse that if the Patriots stole signals, why didn't they win every game. That's a weak argument.
Let's say for 1 month, a batter in baseball is told 30 seconds before every pitch what kind of pitch it'll be (i.e. fastball curveball, change-up, etc.) and the location of where the pitch will be. Do you think the batter will get a hit every at-bat (i.e. bat 1.000 for the entire month)?
Of course the batter isn't going to bat 1.000 for the entire month. Knowing the pitch beforehand doesn't guarantee the batter will get a hit every at-bat, but what will happen is that the batter's batting average will be higher that month because he's going to get a lot more hits that month than he would've gotten if he didn't have that information.
Likewise, the Patriots stealing signals doesn't guarantee a win every game, but what it does do is improve the Patriots chances of winning games. So instead of winning just 9 games per year without cheating, the Patriots might win 12 or 13 games per year with cheating, thereby ensuring that they get a 1st-round bye and home-field advantage in the playoffs. And instead of losing the Super Bowl by 3 or 4 or 8 points without cheating, the Patriots might win the Super Bowl by 3 or 4 or 6 points with cheating.
2. Patriots fans claim that there was no advantage to stealing the signals. That's BULLSHIT, as proven by the fact that the Patriots continued doing it for 6+ seasons.
Let's say you do a lot of day trading and you've done pretty well. But you're greedy and you want to do even better. You have an investment advisor who's getting insider tips so he passes you some insider tips. You use his insider tips (which is illegal) but you don't feel it's helping you do any better.Would you continue using the insider tips (and risk getting caught and getting fined or going to jail) for 6+ seasons if it's not helping you do any better?
If SpyGate didn't give the Patriots any advantage, then they wouldn't have continued doing it for 6+ seasons. The reason the Patriots continued cheating for 6+ seasons during SpyGate was because it was in fact giving them a significant enough advantage.
As we've now seen, cheating was indeed the reason the Patriots won their first 4 Super Bowls. 4-0 in Super Bowls while cheating and 1-3 in Super Bowls without cheating. That says it all!
|
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Feb 11, 2018 21:12:49 GMT
You buy sushi from gas station convenience stores.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daisy on Feb 11, 2018 21:14:12 GMT
We all know you love the Patriots and just want people to speak positively about them.
|
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Feb 11, 2018 22:35:45 GMT
Somebody forgot that stealing signals is perfectly legal. Always has been. Always Wrong trips up, right out of the gate.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 23:43:30 GMT
speaking of sushi i miss genuardi's - they had great sushi  /GettyImages-498163627-58413e365f9b5851e59dce03.jpg) mmmmm.....sushi with soy sauce...... |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 12, 2018 0:30:30 GMT
Somebody forgot that stealing signals is perfectly legal. Always has been. Except when stealing signals by filming opponents' signals from the sidelines. That's against the rules. Always has been. And that's what the Patriots did and that's why their first 3 Super Bowl wins are tainted by cheating from SpyGate. |
|
|
|
Post by Daisy on Feb 12, 2018 0:42:03 GMT
Somebody forgot that stealing signals is perfectly legal. Always has been. Except when stealing signals by filming opponents' signals from the sidelines. That's against the rules. Always has been. And that's what the Patriots did and that's why their first 3 Super Bowl wins are tainted by cheating from SpyGate. Jimmy Johnson: "This is exactly how I was told to do it 18 years ago by a Kansas City Chiefs scout. I tried it, but I didn't think it helped us."  |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Feb 12, 2018 1:41:52 GMT
Somebody forgot that stealing signals is perfectly legal. Always has been. Except when stealing signals by filming opponents' signals from the sidelines. That's against the rules. Always has been. Somebody forgot the memo that changed the rules in 2006. Always Wrong flailing away ... |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 12, 2018 1:50:36 GMT
Except when stealing signals by filming opponents' signals from the sidelines. That's against the rules. Always has been. And that's what the Patriots did and that's why their first 3 Super Bowl wins are tainted by cheating from SpyGate. Jimmy Johnson: "This is exactly how I was told to do it 18 years ago by a Kansas City Chiefs scout. I tried it, but I didn't think it helped us."
Nice try, but your attempt to classify the Cowboys as cheaters by taking a comment out of context is a HUGE FAIL!Here's the full context of Jimmy Johnson's comments: So Jimmy Johnson admitted that the Chiefs told him to film from the press box and that's exactly what Jimmy Johnson said he did. And filming from the press box (like the Cowboys did) isn't against the rules and isn't cheating. But filming from the sidelines (like the Patriots did) is against the rules and is cheating. Therefore, the Cowboys didn't break the rules but the Patriots definitely broke the rules and cheated. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 12, 2018 1:52:37 GMT
Except when stealing signals by filming opponents' signals from the sidelines. That's against the rules. Always has been. Somebody forgot the memo that changed the rules in 2006. Always Wrong flailing away ... The rule was never changed. It has always been against the rules to film opponents' signals from the sidelines. The 2006 memo was just a reminder to the teams of the rules that had been in place for a long time.
Bottom line: Filming opponents' signals from the sidelines (which the Patriots had been doing from 2001 through Week 1 of the 2007 season) has always been against the rules and is cheating. So the Patriots cheated to win their first 3 Super Bowls.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daisy on Feb 12, 2018 2:10:14 GMT
Jimmy Johnson: "This is exactly how I was told to do it 18 years ago by a Kansas City Chiefs scout. I tried it, but I didn't think it helped us."
Nice try, but your attempt to classify the Cowboys as cheaters by taking a comment out of context is a HUGE FAIL!Here's the full context of Jimmy Johnson's comments: So Jimmy Johnson admitted that the Chiefs told him to film from the press box and that's exactly what Jimmy Johnson said he did. And filming from the press box (like the Cowboys did) isn't against the rules and isn't cheating. But filming from the sidelines (like the Patriots did) is against the rules and is cheating. Therefore, the Cowboys didn't break the rules but the Patriots definitely broke the rules and cheated.I didn't quote him out of context, you're quoting a different conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 12, 2018 2:17:34 GMT
The Cowboys are NOT cheaters and the Patriots are cheaters.
Nice try, but your attempt to classify the Cowboys as cheaters by taking a comment out of context is a HUGE FAIL!Here's the full context of Jimmy Johnson's comments: So Jimmy Johnson admitted that the Chiefs told him to film from the press box and that's exactly what Jimmy Johnson said he did. And filming from the press box (like the Cowboys did) isn't against the rules and isn't cheating. But filming from the sidelines (like the Patriots did) is against the rules and is cheating. Therefore, the Cowboys didn't break the rules but the Patriots definitely broke the rules and cheated. I didn't quote him out of context, you're quoting a different conversation. Nope, it isn't a different conversation. It's the same conversation and Jimmy Johnson's quote refers to the Chiefs scout telling him 18 years ago to film from the press box, which is what the Cowboys did and which isn't against the rules. Therefore, the Cowboys didn't cheat, but the Patriots definitely cheated so the Patriots' first 3 Super Bowl wins are tainted by cheating from SpyGate. |
|
|
|
Post by Daisy on Feb 12, 2018 2:30:22 GMT
I didn't quote him out of context, you're quoting a different conversation. Nope, it isn't a different conversation. It's the same conversation and Jimmy Johnson's quote refers to the Chiefs scout telling him 18 years ago to film from the press box, which is what the Cowboys did and which isn't against the rules. Therefore, the Cowboys didn't cheat, but the Patriots definitely cheated so the Patriots' first 3 Super Bowl wins are tainted by cheating from SpyGate. Nope. Different interviews. There is no article with both quotes, only a few forum posts and a reddit where fans discuss the two different interviews. |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Feb 12, 2018 3:13:26 GMT
Somebody forgot the memo that changed the rules in 2006. Always Wrong flailing away ... The rule was never changed.
Wrong again, numbnuts. The memo added language to the rule. Just ask Jimmy Johnson. He’s a big defender of Belichick over this “spygate” stuff. He thinks your argument is idiotic. The fact that you lose every single argument on this topic, only confirms it. Yawn. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 12:04:46 GMT
And what exactly was the advantage produced by filming the signal callers from the sidelines versus doing it from the press box? One would think that it's just a logistic or convenience issue in terms of operating the equipment, etc., but the information is the same, no?
For me, both Spygate and Deflategate were attempts by Goodell to show-off and indicate that he's the man and he is in control, rather than really significant competitive advantage. Sure, the Patriots have an attitude problem, with a general attempt to get around silly rules and not respect everything that the commissioner throws at the league, and it came back to bite them given Goodell's rage and his self-serving interest in keeping his job (did not hesitate in throwing friends under the bus when most owners were upset at the Patriots; did not hesitate in biting the hand that used to feed him), but from what angle a signal caller is filmed or a few PSI up or down if any (cold weather also plays a role) is not the reason why the Patriots win Super Bowls.
The reasons are obvious: a coach who is a football genius and the best one in the league, a QB who is the GOAT, and a system that promotes enduring quality.
If from where a signal caller is filmed and how soft or hard a football is regarding the air pressure, were reasons why teams won Super Bowls, we'd have other dynasties around.
Rather than these insignificant factors, having a good coach, a good system, and a great QB are much more important factors.
|
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Feb 12, 2018 15:47:29 GMT
And what exactly was the advantage produced by filming the signal callers from the sidelines versus doing it from the press box? One would think that it's just a logistic or convenience issue in terms of operating the equipment, etc., but the information is the same, no? For me, both Spygate and Deflategate were attempts by Goodell to show-off and indicate that he's the man and he is in control, rather than really significant competitive advantage. Sure, the Patriots have an attitude problem, with a general attempt to get around silly rules and not respect everything that the commissioner throws at the league, and it came back to bite them given Goodell's rage and his self-serving interest in keeping his job (did not hesitate in throwing friends under the bus when most owners were upset at the Patriots; did not hesitate in biting the hand that used to feed him), but from what angle a signal caller is filmed or a few PSI up or down if any (cold weather also plays a role) is not the reason why the Patriots win Super Bowls. The reasons are obvious: a coach who is a football genius and the best one in the league, a QB who is the GOAT, and a system that promotes enduring quality. If from where a signal caller is filmed and how soft or hard a football is regarding the air pressure, were reasons why teams won Super Bowls, we'd have other dynasties around. Rather than these insignificant factors, having a good coach, a good system, and a great QB are much more important factors. Well said.  |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Feb 12, 2018 17:06:54 GMT
And what exactly was the advantage produced by filming the signal callers from the sidelines versus doing it from the press box? One would think that it's just a logistic or convenience issue in terms of operating the equipment, etc., but the information is the same, no? Always Wrong thinks the Patriots employed "advanced technology" to secretly transmit those images to a cabal of analysts in a secret bunker who could quickly breakdown the information (fast forwarding through a multitude of cheerleader shots) and direct their findings back to the head coach during the game. He's no better than the 9/11 twoofer who pretends to ask a semi-reasonable question about 9/11 when he really believes the towers were destroyed by space lasers. There is an insurmountable degree of stupid at work here. |
|
|
|
Post by _ on Feb 12, 2018 17:44:37 GMT
Most coaches 'don't trust the Patriots'
John Breech
mugshot by John Breech
@johnbreech
20h ago • 2 min read
Eagles long snapper Rick Lovato raised some eyebrows around the NFL this past week when he revealed during a radio interview that the Eagles held a fake practice during their walkthrough at U.S. Bank Stadium the day before the Super Bowl.
According to Lovato, the Eagles decided to hold a fake practice just in case the Patriots were spying on them.
"We weren't going to show anything to anyone, especially being at the stadium," Lovato told WDAE-AM in Tampa Bay.
Although it has never been proven that the Patriots have spied on anyone before a Super Bowl, it's clear the Eagles didn't want to take any chances. According to Malcolm Jenkins, the Patriots' reputation for spying on other teams was enough, even if they've never actually spied on anyone.
"Tthere are still a lot of coaches out there that don't trust the Patriots, so sometimes they'll overthink it and do some fake plays in case anybody's watching," Jenkins said Friday, when he was asked about the alleged fake practice during an interview on SportsCenter.
Lane Johnson, who was also being interviewed, agreed with Jenkins and offered a simple "Yup," after the Eagles safety was done talking.
Eagles wide receiver Torrey Smith was also asked about the fake practice on Friday, and if Smith's answer is any indication, we can probably go ahead and assume that the Eagles definitely ran some sort of fake walkthrough.
"I always think someone's watching," Smith said on PFT Live, via Pro Football Talk.
The one thing Smith also added is that the Eagles did actually run some of their Super Bowl plays, so it wasn't just a completely fake practice.
"I mean, we ran plays," Smith said. "They were our plays. Some of them may have not have necessarily been in the game plan or in the same order. We ran plays that we run. It wasn't like a circus, by any means."
One thing that could make this situation even more interesting is if someone asks Bill Belichick about it. Basically, Lovato and Jenkins are saying the fake walkthrough happened because the Eagles thought there was a chance the Patriots might spy on them. That's about as close as you can get to calling the Patriots cheaters without actually calling the Patriots cheaters, so it would be interesting to hear what Belichick has to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 12, 2018 19:29:42 GMT
what exactly was the advantage produced by filming the signal callers from the sidelines versus doing it from the press box? One would think that it's just a logistic or convenience issue in terms of operating the equipment, etc., but the information is the same, no? No, the advantage from filming from the sidelines over filming from the press box is no blindspots. We've seen numerous times when 1 angle of a replay is inconclusive while a different angle of a relay provides conclusive proof. So location of the camera is important. The press box doesn't move, but the coaches move up and down the field as the line of scrimmage moves. So there are blindspots when filming from the press box. Not so with filming from the sidelines. Filming from the sidelines allows the cameraman to move up and down the field just like the opposing coaches do and thus eliminates blindspots. Rather than these insignificant factors, having a good coach, a good system, and a great QB are much more important factors. Those aren't insignificant factors. Those are what put the Patriots over the top. 4-0 in Super Bowls while cheating and 1-3 in Super Bowls without cheating. So basically, the Patriots were good enough to get to those Super Bowls against the Giants and the Eagles, but without cheating the Patriots weren't good enough to win those Super Bowls. In the first 3 Super Bowls, cheating was a significant enough factor that it was able to turn what could've been a 3 or 4 or 8 points loss (like the losses to the Giants or Eagles) into a 3 or 4 point win. That's why the Patriots continued to cheat for 6+ seasons in SpyGate and taht's also why Brady cheated in DeflateGate (after going 9 seasons without winning a Super Bowl) - because they knew that they were good enough to get to the Super Bowl but not good enough to win without cheating and they needed to cheat to get over the top. |
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Feb 12, 2018 20:52:37 GMT
Rather than these insignificant factors, having a good coach, a good system, and a great QB are much more important factors. Those aren't insignificant factors. Those are what put the Patriots over the top. 4-0 in Super Bowls while cheating and 1-3 in Super Bowls without cheating. So basically, the Patriots were good enough to get to those Super Bowls against the Giants and the Eagles, but without cheating the Patriots weren't good enough to win those Super Bowls. In the first 3 Super Bowls, cheating was a significant enough factor that it was able to turn what could've been a 3 or 4 or 8 points loss (like the losses to the Giants or Eagles) into a 3 or 4 point win. That's why the Patriots continued to cheat for 6+ seasons in SpyGate and taht's also why Brady cheated in DeflateGate (after going 9 seasons without winning a Super Bowl) - because they knew that they were good enough to get to the Super Bowl but not good enough to win without cheating and they needed to cheat to get over the top. The line of "thinking" here is so fucking preposterous that I am not sure whether to laugh at you, or actually feel sorry for your parents. |
|
