Tagliabue vacates Bounty players suspensions

[Lestat]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

And yet they've been to two and havent skipped a beat since.

So, youre saying David Tyree's circus catch is a direct result of the Patriots not having video of defensive hand signals?

Dont be dumb.

no, i'm saying karma is a b**** and they got it handed to them in heartbreaking fashion twice since their cheating was exposed.

[maher_tyler]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

Considering a gazillion variables go into winning a football game, youre really going to point to THAT as the reason they lost? You guys would have a point if the Patriots were suddenly 5-11 after Spygate, but thyre in the playoffs every year, have been in 2 super bowls that they could have just as easily have won, and havent skipped a beat.

It did nothing. Obviously the penalty is fine, you dont want to insinuate its ok, but taping defensive signals that probably change from game to game is essentially worthless. We all see them anyway!

If it didn't help enough to help then why would they do it so much??

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Originally Posted by maher_tyler

If it didn't help enough to help then why would they do it so much??

Cause belichick tries to use every angle. I'm not saying it may not have assisted them every so often, but it couldn't have done much, and they clearly didn't need it.

And the nfl has to come down hard on this kind of stuff so it doesn't set a precedent, but you want to know why belichick wasn't suspended? Cause it wasn't that big of a deal

[SonOfLe-loLang]

And karmas a b****? If losing two Super Bowls is bad karma, I can't imagine what the broncos did to warm their past 13 crappy years

[broncosteven]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

I still dont think the videotaping done by the Patriots was a big deal. They were just taping someone everyone saw anyway, and something Belichick even stated didnt help much.

define much

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by broncosteven

define much

"much" = enough that they kept doing it with sufficient consistency that a former assistant coach knew it would happen and arranged for them to be caught doing it.

[ol#7]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

"much" = enough that they kept doing it with sufficient consistency that a former assistant coach knew it would happen and arranged for them to be caught doing it.

This, exactly this. To think it made no difference is assinine. Videotaping the Rams gave them enough of an edge to be competitive against a team that vastly outclassed them. As they got better, along with the cheating, they became somewhat dominant. To think otherwise is just buying into what the NFL hopes you will think and forget all about it.

[gunns]

Originally Posted by ol#7

This, exactly this. To think it made no difference is assinine. Videotaping the Rams gave them enough of an edge to be competitive against a team that vastly outclassed them. As they got better, along with the cheating, they became somewhat dominant. To think otherwise is just buying into what the NFL hopes you will think and forget all about it.

And if it wasn't much help why would an assistant coach pull the same thing when he got his own head coaching job? Frankly, I don't care if it helped or didn't, it's just an example of how the Patriots get a punishment that will not affect their team while the Saints get torn apart. Why?

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Originally Posted by ol#7

This, exactly this. To think it made no difference is assinine. Videotaping the Rams gave them enough of an edge to be competitive against a team that vastly outclassed them. As they got better, along with the cheating, they became somewhat dominant. To think otherwise is just buying into what the NFL hopes you will think and forget all about it.

I dont think taping defensive signals, which change, is that big of a deal. And i'll stand by that. They deserve their penalty, its still cheating, but CLEARLY they didnt need it because they've been just as dominant ever since.

And spare me the "they havent won a super bowl" bs. They've been to two more since then (including a 16-0 season) and could have easily won those games if a couple of balls bounced their way.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Originally Posted by gunns

And if it wasn't much help why would an assistant coach pull the same thing when he got his own head coaching job? Frankly, I don't care if it helped or didn't, it's just an example of how the Patriots get a punishment that will not affect their team while the Saints get torn apart. Why?

This is probably due to poor timing. Bounties are nothing new in the NFL, but at a time when the concussion issue is front and center and threatening the league, they had to act strongly.

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

I dont think taping defensive signals, which change, is that big of a deal. And i'll stand by that. They deserve their penalty, its still cheating, but CLEARLY they didnt need it because they've been just as dominant ever since.

And spare me the "they havent won a super bowl" bs. They've been to two more since then (including a 16-0 season) and could have easily won those games if a couple of balls bounced their way.

So your position is that it doesn't help an offense much to know in advance what the defense is going to do? I'd counter that with... it's ludicrous to presume that knowing (in advance) precisely what the other team is gonna do wasn't a huge advantage to Gruden's Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the SB vs. his former team.

You certainly have the right to be a Patriot apologist if you wish... but the fact is, if the rule-breaking had not yielded a significant competitive edge, Belicheat wouldn't have kept doing it.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

So your position is that it doesn't help an offense much to know in advance what the defense is going to do? I'd counter that with... it's ludicrous to presume that knowing (in advance) precisely what the other team is gonna do wasn't a huge advantage to Gruden's Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the SB vs. his former team.

You certainly have the right to be a Patriot apologist if you wish... but the fact is, if the rule-breaking had not yielded a significant competitive edge, Belicheat wouldn't have kept doing it.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Yes, if you knew exactly what the defense was going to do beforehand, then youd have a huge advantage, but i dont think they did, and i dont know how often they even used them. Again, all this **** is OUT IN THE OPEN. Its not like they were taping locker room conversations.

And again, they havent skipped a beat since being caught. In fact, they went 16-0 the year after and were within a circus catch away from the Super Bowl. I'm not a "Patriots Apologist," im just saying if you think taping defensive signals is what made them great, even though their offense actually got BETTER after they stopped, then thats absurd.

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Yes, if you knew exactly what the defense was going to do beforehand, then youd have a huge advantage, but i dont think they did, and i dont know how often they even used them. Again, all this **** is OUT IN THE OPEN. Its not like they were taping locker room conversations.

And again, they havent skipped a beat since being caught. In fact, they went 16-0 the year after and were within a circus catch away from the Super Bowl. I'm not a "Patriots Apologist," im just saying if you think taping defensive signals is what made them great, even though their offense actually got BETTER after they stopped, then thats absurd.

Yes, we can agree to disagree.

If the payoff for breaking league rules was truly insignificant (as you and Bill Belichick claim), then why take the risk? The advantage gained had to have been "worth it" to Belicheat or he would not have done it so consistently. It was the height of hubris to do it to a former assistant's team and he got what he deserved (caught in the act).

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

Yes, we can agree to disagree.

If the payoff for breaking league rules was truly insignificant (as you and Bill Belichick claim), then why take the risk? The advantage gained had to have been "worth it" to Belicheat or he would not have done it so consistently. It was the height of hubris to do it to a former assistant's team and he got what he deserved (caught in the act).

Because some control freaks like to have every advantage at their disposal regardless of it's effect

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

Because some control freaks like to have every advantage at their disposal regardless of it's effect

Well, again, I'm gonna have to disagree... the fact that he continued to do it would indicate to me that he saw enough advantage to make any risks "worth it".