# My 'Boys were Alive and Kicking - SD is out - GB down - NY for the win!!!



## Hellefire (Jan 9, 2008)

While I have never particularly liked their half-sized state, the Cowboys have been my team since 1979. The same year I stopped liking football because I was supposed to, and started liking it because I just do. The same year I stopped rooting for the Chargers because my father happened to live near San Diego at the time, and picked a team I looked up to and believed in. The same year I discovered D&D. I still do all of those things - same feelings about small states and big hats, same feelings about sports and specific teams, still game. And always, the Cowboys. Some Love them, some hate them, some Love a winning record. Me, I have my reasons, but I always go for the 'Boys, win, lose or draw. Luckily, it's win time again .

Aaron


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 9, 2008)

*GO GIANTS!*


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 9, 2008)

Unfortunately for the Cowboys, it's looking like TO won't play this weekend and they played horribly the last few weeks of the season.  I suspect they will have their hands full with the Giants, who are playing with new-found confidence after the Pats game and their win last week.

The line is Cowboys -7 1/2.  I'd definitely take the Giants.  They Cowboys might win but I think it's going to be close.


----------



## awayfarer (Jan 9, 2008)

I've always lived in New England but I've been an Eagles fan since I first took an interest in football. Of course, I took a roughly ten year hiatus after they had 3-13 and 5-11 seasons back to back. I just got back into football this year and was expecting more of the same. 8-8 ain't much but I'm glad they didn't have a losing season the first year I was back.   

I hate to say this but I've always hated the Cowboys and when Philly and Dallas play I'm rooting for the Cowboys to lose as much as I'm rooting for the Eagles to win. So as not to end on a negative note, I'll say that it's nice that most of the NFC East got into the playoffs.   

By the way, from your title I thought that you might have unexpectedly become a father or something.


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 9, 2008)

I grew up in Green Bay.  I have Packer season tickets.  I have a share of stock in Green Bay Packers, Inc. (truly).  I *loathe* the Cowboys, even more than I dislike the Bears or *shudder* Vikings.

It just depresses me that, if the home teams win this weekend, the Pack will have to go to Texas Stadium, where they seem to have a tremendous mental block or something.

Go Pack Go!


----------



## Hellefire (Jan 9, 2008)

*Pics for the Week*

By the way, my pics for this week are:

Dallas
Seattle
New England (Love to be wrong on this one)
San Diego

Aaron


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 9, 2008)

Hellefire said:
			
		

> By the way, my pics for this week are:
> 
> Dallas
> Seattle
> ...




Is that against the spread?  I tried to get a picks thread going for the playoffs for fun but there wasn't any interest.

Here are the current odds:


```
Saturday, Jan 12
 Favorite 	Open 	Today 	O/U 	Underdog
  at Green Bay 	8 1/2 	8 	42 	Seattle
  at New England 	13 	13 1/2 	49 1/2 	Jacksonville
 Sunday, Jan 13
 Favorite 	Open 	Today 	O/U 	Underdog
  at Dallas 	7 1/2 	7 1/2 	47 	NY Giants
  at Indianapolis 	8 1/2 	8 1/2 	45 1/2 	San Diego
```

My picks:

Seattle (+8) at GREEN BAY
Jacksonville (+13 1/2) at NEW ENGLAND
NY Giants (+7 1/2) at DALLAS
San Diego (+8 1/2) at INDY

Yes, I am picking all the visiting teams (against the spread anyway).  I think all the spreads are way too high.  Straight-up I like Green Bay, New England, Indy, and the Giants in the only upset.


----------



## Hellefire (Jan 9, 2008)

Straight up, well I gave my picks - the only one we agree on is NE, and I don't think they will make that spread.

With the odds - I am going with all of the away teams EXCEPT Dallas - I think they will cover the spread. Hard for me to give up more than a touchdown, but I still think they will.

Aaron


----------



## Graybeard (Jan 10, 2008)

I've been a Cowboys fan since the mid 70's. I've never liked any New England sports team. I don't like the Red Sox, the Celtics, the Bruins, or the Patriots. I do respect and admire certain members of those teams and recognize them as great players and athletes. 

My baseball team of choice is the Orioles. Hockey is the Islanders and don't watch much basketball. I tend to enjoy watching golf more than basketball.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 10, 2008)

I refuse to try and pick against the spread; if Vegas knows what they're doing (and there aren't irrational factors driving betting in the face of an unfavorable spread), it's a coinflip. And the odds of them not knowing what they're doing are equally likely in either direction.

So...

Indy (and maybe the local media will realize after the Bolts lose that losing on the road in the divisional round is worse than losing at home in the divisional round, not better)
New England (sigh)
Green Bay
Giants (because one -- and only one -- of the road teams will probably win, and I can't come up with anything even vaguely plausible for the other three games. Also because this outcome favors the Packers)


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 10, 2008)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Green Bay
> Giants (because one -- and only one -- of the road teams will probably win, and I can't come up with anything even vaguely plausible for the other three games. Also because this outcome favors the Packers)




I love you, man.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 10, 2008)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> I love you, man.




Well, if the Browns hadn't skipped town on a junior high school kid from Cleveland who was living in Wisconsin at the time, I'd still be a Browns fan. But they did.


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 11, 2008)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Well, if the Browns hadn't skipped town on an junior high school kid from Cleveland who was living in Wisconsin at the time, I'd still be a Browns fan. But they did.




You, my most-excellent sir, are a pup.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 11, 2008)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> You, my most-excellent sir, are a pup.




Hey, I'll be 32 next week. And I've been a Packers fan for more than half of my life.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jan 11, 2008)

Go Cowboys!!!!


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 12, 2008)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Hey, I'll be 32 next week. And I've been a Packers fan for more than half of my life.




I'll be 43 in March, and I've been a Packers fan for over 3/4 of my life. 

We moved to Green Bay (my father's hometown) on my 10th birthday.  I discovered football that year, because, honestly, there isn't a whole lot else to *do* in Green Bay, particularly in the winter.


----------



## Hellefire (Jan 12, 2008)

Well, good luck to you Packers fans today, though I'm still picking the Seahawks.
Also, we'll see if NE can continue their perfect season. I hope not, but it's hard to not give them the call. I don't expect they will cover the spread, but I think they will win, unfortunately.

Of course, the truly important game comes tomorrow .

Lets get ready for some football!!!

Aaron


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 12, 2008)

Hellefire said:
			
		

> Of course, the truly important game comes tomorrow .




Absolutely...the Chargers / Colts rematch is the game that *everyone's* been waiting for all season.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 13, 2008)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> Absolutely...the Chargers / Colts rematch is the game that *everyone's* been waiting for all season.




I'd've been just fine with the Chargers playing some losers that rode a soft schedule to a first-round bye, myself (yeah, I'm a Pack fan first, but I've lived her over six years now; the locals have grown on me  ).


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 14, 2008)

What an awesome weekend - Colts lose, Cowboys lose, and Patriots WIN WIN WIN!!!

I couldn't have asked for anything more.


----------



## Rl'Halsinor (Jan 14, 2008)

And the Winner Is - THE GIANTS

I am no giants fan by the least, but once again Romo comes through for the 'boys,,,, NOT!  And the hapless Cowboy fans will blame Jessica Simpson because their fragile mental condition just cannot fathom a loss within their own system.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 14, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> What an awesome weekend - Colts lose, Cowboys lose, and Patriots WIN WIN WIN!!!
> 
> I couldn't have asked for anything more.




More importantly Packers win, and Chargers win. Syracuse basketball lost, but I'm starting to think this season is a lost cause with Devo and Rautins out for the year.

I'm thinking that the home teams are going to be very heavy favorites next week. I'd like to think the Chargers could pull a rabbit out of their hat, but they seem to only get the random, flukey victories over the Colts.


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 14, 2008)

So, as I'm a Packers season ticket holder, my father and I have tickets to the NFC Championship Game next Sunday.

We may end up selling them, mostly because the game isn't going to even *start* until 5:30pm, and the *high* in GB next Sunday is predicted to be 7 degrees.  I'm sorely tempted to let somebody else pay me $350 a seat to go freeze their butts off.


----------



## Hellefire (Jan 14, 2008)

/groan
Wow that sucked...
The only team that won who I wanted to win was the Chargers
My general feelings about football teams fall into five general categories - like a lot, like a little, dont care, dont like a little, dont like a lot...
I generally went with my feelings for my pics (except for NE because I dont care about them and would rather a team I like at least a bit go the distance if any team will)

Dallas - favorite team
Giants - don't care

Packers - like a little (or a lot even, Lombardi was the man, and I like Brett Fav-re)
Seahawks - like a lot (location thing - we don't have a team in Alaska)

Chargers - Like a lot (lived with my dad near San Diego when I first got into football - I still miss Fouts)
Colts - don't like a lot

NE - Don't care
Jacksonville - Don't care

So that's where I got my pics last week...

following that same theory, which netted me a .50 record last weekend, this week I'll have to go with...

San Diego and Green Bay

Alternately, I can go with both road teams that won Sunday to keep winning on the road and root for San Diego and Giants. Or I can go with the odds and statistics and go for NE and Packers. But I'll go with my heart on this one - 

San Diego and Packers!

Aaron


----------



## Goobermunch (Jan 14, 2008)

You know how to find Dallas from Anchorage?

Walk east till you smell it and south till you step in it.

--G


----------



## Hellefire (Jan 14, 2008)

Same basic directions from Seward 

Aaron


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 14, 2008)

I ended up picking 3 out of the 4 games against the spread.  Only one I missed was GB-Sea.  

I noticed that the opening line for the Pats-SD game is 15!  The Pats will win but that line seems really high.  Although, there is the chance that Rivers, LT, and Gates won't play but even if they do, they are sure to be banged up.  The Colts games took a heavy toll on both teams.  Hmm, maybe that spread isn't so high after all.  Regardless, I'm surprised Vegas didn't wait a couple of days to see if more info on SD's injuries was released.


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 14, 2008)

The thread title should be changed...

Norv Turner in the conf. championship. Not right. I might have to root for the Pats, for one game  I am disapointed that there will be no Colts-Patriots playoff game this year.

Pats-Packers in the SB is OK.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 15, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Regardless, I'm surprised Vegas didn't wait a couple of days to see if more info on SD's injuries was released.




I'd be surprised if Vegas didn't have somebody on the inside with solid info that they could call for a tip, well ahead of any public knowledge.

Like, even, the moment he walked back into the locker room the day he got hurt.

"So... How bad is it looking for Rivers?"

"Definitely out."


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 15, 2008)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> I'm sorely tempted to let somebody else pay me $350 a seat to go freeze their butts off.




It was even better than that, as it turns out.  We sold the tickets to a ticket agency in GB for $525 a pop.

Obviously, I'd like to see the Pack win.  In the AFC, I'm of two minds.  I'm no fan of Belichick, nor of Moss, and, from that standpoint, I'd like to see the Chargers upset them.  

OTOH, I'm really sick and tired of hearing the 1972 Dolphin alumni cackle wth glee when a team stumbles in pursuit of a perfect season.  This season got particularly annoying; when the Patriots won the regular season finale, some of the Dolphins had to chime in with, "no no no, not so fast, we were perfect in the post-season, too."  

It's getting old, guys; there's only so many times we want to hear Grandpa tell us how much better things were when he was a lad, and, frankly, it's ungracious for a record-holder to demean those who threaten to break their record.


----------



## Goldmoon (Jan 15, 2008)

Please, Please PLEASE someone beat the Pacheats! Put a helmet into Brady's knee or something.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 15, 2008)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> Please, Please PLEASE someone beat the Pacheats! Put a helmet into Brady's knee or something.




While we're at it, here's hoping you suffer some injury that robs you of your livelihood.

Stay classy.


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 15, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> While we're at it, here's hoping you suffer some injury that robs you of your livelihood.
> 
> Stay classy.




When I was a kid, and a Packers fan, in the mid-70s, the Packers were *awful*, and would routinely get thrashed by the Bears (with Walter Payton running roughshod over them) and the Vikings (ditto for Chuck Foreman). 

I actually used to pray that Payton and Foreman would break their legs.

I feel really bad about that now, especially after Payton's premature passing.  He was a very classy individual, who just happened to play on the other team.


----------



## FickleGM (Jan 16, 2008)

Go Packers! 

Go Cheatriots! Operation 18-1 Must Remain Intact.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 16, 2008)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Go Cheatriots! Operation 18-1 Must Remain Intact.




I've heard this a couple of times recently... definitely true. 

The season means nothing without the Superbowl... if you want to crush Pats fans, that's where to beat em.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jan 16, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I've heard this a couple of times recently... definitely true.
> 
> The season means nothing without the Superbowl... if you want to crush Pats fans, that's where to beat em.



 The season record would certainly be worth a lot less if the Pats didn't manage to win the Superbowl.  The part that would bother me the most if they lost in the Superbowl would be the inevitable interviews with Mercury Morris spouting off about the '72 Dolphins again.

Hoping for a Packers-Patriots Superbowl.  That should be a really great matchup.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 16, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I've heard this a couple of times recently... definitely true.
> 
> The season means nothing without the Superbowl... if you want to crush Pats fans, that's where to beat em.




I'm really hoping SD or the Pack manage it. It'd be depressing for both my favorite team (Green Bay) and the local team (San Diego) to be knocked out by the same team.


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 16, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> if you want to crush Pats fans....




...and hear the lamentations of their women.  Definitely.


----------



## Hellefire (Jan 16, 2008)

I havent hear much from Pat's fans here. As I mentioned earlier, if some team is to go undefeated and match the '72 Dolphins (year I was born by the way ) I would rather it be some team I like (of course my Cowboys would do nicely).

I'm more concerned that the Patriots lose at all than that they go 'almost' the distance. And really, I like S.D. a touch more than the packers, so I'm still going for S.D. and G.B. this coming weekend, and S.D. in the superbowl.

Aaron


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 16, 2008)

Hellefire said:
			
		

> I havent hear much from Pat's fans here.




That's because the anti-Pats crowd is pretty much unhinged. There's no objective basis on which to even begin a discussion of the domination of this team and this franchise.


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 16, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That's because the anti-Pats crowd is pretty much unhinged. There's no objective basis on which to even begin a discussion of the domination of this team and this franchise.




Indeed...I haven't seen this much venom against a team in a long while.

As I think about it, one additional reason I'd like to see Green Bay advance is that, otherwise, it'd likely be a New York vs. New England Super Bowl, and I'd like to remind sports fans in the Northeast Corridor that they *do* play professional sports in the rest of the country.  (My god, I'm so sick of hearing about Red Sox-Yankees....)


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 16, 2008)

Hellefire said:
			
		

> I havent hear much from Pat's fans here. As I mentioned earlier, if some team is to go undefeated and match the '72 Dolphins (year I was born by the way ) I would rather it be some team I like (of course my Cowboys would do nicely).




What really needs to be said?  

They've already accomplished something no team has done (gone 16-0 in the regular season, the 72 Dolphins went 14-0) and have done it in an arguably much tougher league.  The changes to free agency and the salary cap are HUGE.  What the Patriots are doing now was supposed to be IMPOSSIBLE under the new rules.

On top of that, not only are they 2 wins away from having the greatest single season and being the greatest team in NFL history but also in all sports.  Period.

The odds of them doing so are also heavily in their favor.  They are favored by 2 TD's against a decimated Chargers teams who they handily beat earlier in the season (and when they were at full strength).  They will go into the Superbowl favored by at least a TD, regardless who they play.  They are also the most experienced team, top to bottom, remaining in the playoffs.

At this point, I don't really need to talk much more about the Pats.  I'm just enjoying all the bitter sentiment against them in the rest of the country.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 16, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> On top of that, not only are they 2 wins away from having the greatest single season and being the greatest team in NFL history but also in all sports.  Period




Wait...wait...

Huh?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 16, 2008)

Yeah, I'm a little curious on that point myself. Not saying I have any competing examples, just curious exactly what criteria went into that proclamation.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jan 16, 2008)

Yeah, good as they've been, there's been some basketball teams that have dominated their sport far more than the Pats have with football.

Especially seeing as how they'll lose in their eventual rematch with the Giants.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 16, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm a little curious on that point myself. Not saying I have any competing examples, just curious exactly what criteria went into that proclamation.




Extensive sports knowledge and full understanding of how difficult it is to do what the Patriots are doing given the current salary cap structure and free agent culture in the NFL.

All the great sports dynasties were able to maintain an iron grip on their players.  They didn't have to deal with players demanding huge money as soon as they had one good season.  The players have built their dynasty with smart drafting, superb scouting (Scott Pioli is the best in the league at this), coaching, bringing in veterans hungry to play for a winner, and team loyalty - Brady took a LOT less money so he wouldn't tie up a ton of cap space.

The Patriots are close to having one of the greatest seasons in sports history.  That can't be disputed.  The fact that they've done it in today's NFL is _not supposed to happen._  The cap structure was put into effect to _ensure parity._  The Patriots have single-handedly blown that concept up.  They are the model franchise in all of sports.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 16, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Extensive sports knowledge and full understanding of how difficult it is to do what the Patriots are doing given the current salary cap structure and free agent culture in the NFL.




"Extensive sports knowledge" is not a criteria; that's an appeal to authority.

As for the actual criteria you appear to be using, I'd say that's evidence of coaching prowess, and management prowess, but really has nothing to do with an achievement of sport. I don't particularly care _how_ a sports team is put together, the common frame of reference for the greatness of athletes is-- stay with me here-- their athletic performance.

None of which is to say that the Pats wouldn't be considered great on that criteria. I was expecting you to point to things like Moss and Brady's record-breaking season. I don't think I'm alone in expecting the criteria for "greatest team in all of sports" to refer to the actual sports being played. 

If we're going to throw open the criteria for "greatness" to activities off the field, I'll start looking for charitable works, military service, delivering babies, fighting crime in Gotham, etc.



> The Patriots are close to having one of the greatest seasons in sports history.  That can't be disputed.  The fact that they've done it in today's NFL is _not supposed to happen._  The cap structure was put into effect to _ensure parity._  The Patriots have single-handedly blown that concept up.  They are the model franchise in all of sports.




I wouldn't dispute any of that, but I think in the end, when folks (outside of New England) talk about "the greatest teams in sports history" the why's and how's of how the team came together are an asterisk at best, and folks will tend to focus on the actual performance of the sport in question. Even great coaching is a footnote, except where it relates to encouraging the best performance from your team.

But then again I don't have the "extensive sports knowledge" to really give a  about how hard it was to put the team together under the salary cap. Maybe someday they'll award trophies for that.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 16, 2008)

I don't understand how a team, any team, can be the greatest team in all sports unless they've played in ALL sports and proven it.

Otherwise, they can only qualify to be the greatest team of THEIR sport.


----------



## FickleGM (Jan 16, 2008)

Well, the cheating does have to factor in the conversation somewhere, doesn't it?


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 16, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I don't understand how a team, any team, can be the greatest team in all sports unless they've played in ALL sports and proven it.
> 
> Otherwise, they can only qualify to be the greatest team of THEIR sport.




Even within a sport, comparisons across time can be challenging, and makes for great debates over beer.  As GlassJaw notes, the NFL today isn't the same league as it was before free agency and the salary cap.  When you add on the changes to rules over the years, and the advances in training and sports medicine, the comparisons become even more interesting.

And, record alone isn't necessarily the best yardstick...many experts believe that the undefeated 1972 Dolphins were not as good a team as they were a year later, when their record was "only" 12-2, but won the Super Bowl again.  I've even read one guy who feels that the '96 Packers were the best team ever, because they were the only champion who had the #1 ranked offense as well as the #1 ranked defense.  (Even as a Packer fan, I'm not sure I buy that argument, but you see that there's a lot of different yardsticks you could use.)

All that said...certainly, the Patriots have been the dominant NFL team of this decade, with three Super Bowl wins and an undefeated season.  They'll almost undoubtedly be considered one of the all-time great teams, up there with the Cowboys of the '90s, the 49ers of the '80s, the Steelers of the '70s, and the Packers of the '60s.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jan 16, 2008)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Well, the cheating does have to factor in the conversation somewhere, doesn't it?



Sure, it could be part of an actual discussion, where folks broke down the nature of the rules violation for those casual followers of the sport such as myself and gave their opinions on how much an assumed consistent breaking of said rules would have "tainted" the team's current record, that would be cool. 

As a sour grapes insult to throw in whenever a team comes up as if it's obvious that the incident should define the entire season or recent history of the team? Not so much a "has to" situation.    (esp since my casual understanding is that even in levying the fine, the commissioner stated that the violation was not considered to have changed the outcome of the game - but if you have reason to believe that assessment was wrong, that would be an interesting conversation too.)


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 17, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I don't understand how a team, any team, can be the greatest team in all sports unless they've played in ALL sports and proven it.
> 
> Otherwise, they can only qualify to be the greatest team of THEIR sport.




No, it's possible to compare teams from sport to sport.

For example, I'd pit the accomplishments of Lance Armstrong and his Tour de France team against the Patriots.

From what I understand, they dominated cycling-- without breaking the salary cap.

And with just one testicle.


----------



## ClashmoreDave (Jan 17, 2008)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Well, the cheating does have to factor in the conversation somewhere, doesn't it?



Sure...for half of a game.
What about the other 16 and a half?


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jan 17, 2008)

ClashmoreDave said:
			
		

> Sure...for half of a game.
> What about the other 16 and a half?



Oh no! You have awakened the sleeping giant! Now he'll go on a posting spree. Maybe 3 posts in a row or something....   

(Love you, honey)


----------



## FickleGM (Jan 17, 2008)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Sure, it could be part of an actual discussion, where folks broke down the nature of the rules violation for those casual followers of the sport such as myself and gave their opinions on how much an assumed consistent breaking of said rules would have "tainted" the team's current record, that would be cool.
> 
> As a sour grapes insult to throw in whenever a team comes up as if it's obvious that the incident should define the entire season or recent history of the team? Not so much a "has to" situation.    (esp since my casual understanding is that even in levying the fine, the commissioner stated that the violation was not considered to have changed the outcome of the game - but if you have reason to believe that assessment was wrong, that would be an interesting conversation too.)




First, is ClashmoreDave your hubby?  If so, hi Mr. Kahuna. 

Second, I think that I will try to tackle your request.

I will start by explaining what the team was punished for:

_The Patriots were fined and are losing their first round draft pick in 2008 (this year) because they were caught taping the Jets' sideline.  Specifically, they were pointing the camera at the defensive coaches as they sent signals to the players.  They were then pointing the camera at the scoreboard to get the down and distance.

Each team received a notice from the league that it was against the rules to tape the coaches on the sideline, prior to the season starting, so the Patriots had no excuse for not knowing this rule._

Now I will touch on the punishment:

_The team and coach were both fined.  The team has lost it's first round draft pick for the upcoming draft.  The team was ordered to hand over all tapes to the NFL Commissioner's office, so that they may review them and decide on a course of action.  The NFL Commissioner's office has since reviewed and destroyed the tapes (admittedly, I am not happy that they didn't disclose what they found to the public, but that was their perogative)._

Now I will touch on the nature of defensive signal calling (as well as legal sign stealing), so that I can later explain how the Patriots' actions could have assisted them:

_Teams will often have multiple members of the team/coaching staff send signals in to their defense (these signals are hand signals and such, like in baseball, since the defense does not have a player with a radio in his helmet, like the Quarterback on the offense does).  The reason that multiple people send these signals in is because it is not illegal to look at the defensive coaches from the opposing sidelines (it is only illegal to tape).  So, in order to confuse anyone who may be watching, they use multiple people, some who send in fake signals.  Based on these signals, the defense will position itself prior to the snap and how the defense should act after the snap (coverages, blitzes, stunts, etc.)._

Now I will touch on why it is legal to visually steal signals, but not use surveillance equipment (a.k.a. video recorders):

_Since it would be silly to try to prevent all of the players and staff from looking across the field, there really is no way for the NFL to prevent sign-stealing.  This is combated by the teams in a couple ways, including having multiple people sending in fake signals.  In practice, it's similar to reading your opponent in poker or counting cards.  At worst, it is considered unprofessional and bush-league, at best, it can give your offense a slight advantage.  Using video recorders allows you to study the signals and figure out which ones are real and which ones are fake.  This could help in the second half, but more likely would be useful the next time the teams play, provided the coaching staff is largely unchanged._

Now I will touch on how knowing the signals could have helped the Patriots, if they had been doing it in the past (this is widely speculated, but I have no proof):

_If the offensive coaches had a way of know what the coverage would be or if there was likely to be a blitz, they could call a play that would take advantage of said defensive setup.  Since a blitz sends at least one extra defender in to rush the passer, it leaves on less defender to guard a pass-receiver, so an offense may call a quick pass play to take advantage of the open spot and get rid of the ball before the blitzer gets to the quarterback (or they could call a max-protect play in order to keep a running back or tight end in to block the extra pass-rusher).  Basically, it could provide enough of an edge to help the offense be more effective._

Now I will touch on why it is fruitless to be too decisive on this issue, from a fan standpoint, whether you are for or against the Patriots:

_We don't know what teams do between games to change their signals.  We don't know if the Patriots were able to gain any advantage from this.  We don't know if they were even able to decipher enough defensive signals to make a difference.  Likewise, if it was helping them, we don't know how long they were doing it and if it had an effect on any of their prior seasons.  So, we just have a he said/he said with fans of the Patriots and those who don't like the Patriots going back and forth.  This is the reason for the reaction that I got from Kahuna and others when I broght it up.  It really has been used as a sour-grapes attack by fans of other teams who want to downplay the Patriots' success this year._

Finally, I will touch on my personal feelings on this:

_I do think that the Patriots have had one of the, if not the, best season (to this point) of any sport.  I also think that it is a low point on the season and will follow the team in some way.  It's too bad, because without it, the season truly would have been flawless (to this point).  I brought it up because it does make the season less than perfect and leaves the door open for another team in the future to actually have a better year.  If the Patriots do win the Super Bowl, I will agree that the 2007 Patriots are the best team and had the best season to date in the history of the NFL.  They are also closing in on being one of the, if not the, best dynasty in the history of the NFL.  It's pretty scary (or exciting if you're a Patriots fan).

I will admit that I really enjoy bringing it up to get under the skin of Patriot fans.  I also normally refer to the team as the Cheatriots and the coach as Belicheat.  Normally, I am an irrational Packers fan, because it is fun to be irrational and sports talk gives me that outlet.  This is a rare moment and I'll try not to be so rational in the future._

I think that I covered everything that I wanted to cover, so I'll end with this:

_Go Packers!

Go Operation 18-1 (this would be the Patriots' record if they lose in the Super Bowl, which I hope happens if the Packers are there to play them)!_


----------



## ClashmoreDave (Jan 17, 2008)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> First, is ClashmoreDave your hubby?  If so, hi Mr. Kahuna.
> 
> Second, I think that I will try to tackle your request.
> 
> I will start by explaining what the team was punished for:




Yep, that would be right, I'm the hubby.

Your analysis is fairly reasonable, but as you point out, it was against the rules (not sure if "illegal" is really the right word to use?) to tape from the sidelines, no where else in the stadium. And I can only _assume_ that they all do  (edit: I meant to say, that they probably all tape from within other parts of the stadium). Of course, I could easily have this part wrong, but its what I've gleaned the few times I've really cared to pay attention. If the NFL is happy with the outcome, who am I to really complain?

(hm, looking a little bit online, I can't confirm that its just illegal to tape from the sidelines. The best I could find is this: '"The rule is that no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game," the league said in a statement from spokesman Greg Aiello.' And that quote came from a site that I've never heard of before, so I can't claim its reliable.)

To be honest, if I had to pick a team that I could live with beating the Pats, it would be the Cheeseheads. This could be some deep seated childhood brainwashing from living in Madison for several years. That could also be why I was not upset when the only Pats game I've attended was a loss to the Packers.  

Yes, they cheated, were caught, they got punished, I've moved on. Please don't get me wrong: I do believe that what they did was wrong, and the Pats should not only play by the rules, but they should also play by the spirit of the rules. Play the game the "right" way. Win with dignity and class (something sorely missing, IMO, from the team. Big chips on their shoulders from Day One).





Edited to clarify that I assume all teams tape withing the stands or other "non-diisallowed" parts of the stadium.


----------



## FickleGM (Jan 17, 2008)

You sir, I like.  

Also, my analysis was all from memory, so there may be holes here and there.

Now, back to being irrational fans, okay. 

GO PACK!


----------



## drothgery (Jan 17, 2008)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Now, back to being irrational fans, okay.
> 
> GO PACK!




What's irrational about that? Maybe this...

GO PACK!

... would be a bit irrational.


----------



## FickleGM (Jan 17, 2008)

drothgery said:
			
		

> What's irrational about that? Maybe this...
> 
> GO PACK!
> 
> ... would be a bit irrational.



 Nope, that's just using the right colors and a large font.  Irrational would be misrepresenting the story or stretching it in order to make it look as though the Cheatriots didn't earn their victories.  Stuff that pisses off their fans, because it discounts the team's accomplishments.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 17, 2008)

ClashmoreDave said:
			
		

> To be honest, if I had to pick a team that I could live with beating the Pats, it would be the Cheeseheads. This could be some deep seated childhood brainwashing from living in Madison for several years.




If that's the only brainwashing you got out of Madison, count yourself lucky.


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 17, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> If that's the only brainwashing you got out of Madison, count yourself lucky.




LOL.  Sounds like he was a kid at the time, and may not have spent much (if any) time on campus.

I spent 6 years there, getting my bachelor's degree, then my master's.  And, by the end, I was ready to go somewhere else, so I could experience reality.


----------



## FickleGM (Jan 17, 2008)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> LOL.  Sounds like he was a kid at the time, and may not have spent much (if any) time on campus.
> 
> I spent 6 years there, getting my bachelor's degree, then my master's.  And, by the end, I was ready to go somewhere else, so I could experience reality.



 Get your reality out of my peanut-butter, you illinoyance.  It's only your Packers fandom that keeps you above the riff-raff.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jan 17, 2008)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> You sir, I like.



I like him too.   

Thank you for going into as much detail as you did. It was interesting and clarified some things I wasn't aware of - I had simply assumed that the signals they were trying to intercept were offensive, for instance, because as a casual watcher the defensive role seemed more reactive. 

In the overall, it would be nice to see the two teams just play the [censored] game on the field, without the rediculous James Bond sideline games (the idea that so many coaches seem to operate under an assumption that there *could* be a lip reader with binoculars and a headset to the opposing coach out there and they should cover their mouth while calling plays just in case is totally surreal and annoying to me.) Going the extra mile and breaking the explicit rules to do it is that much more disapointing, and I can see your point about it tainting the season for them. (Though not to the extent that some folks felt Barry Bonds' home run record was tainted by steroid use - the actual effect of the violation is just so much more ambiguous.) While I am simply not the type to be a sports fan, I tend to have more tolerance for the Hubby's fanhood when I feel that a team has more going for them then the ability to score points.   

My Fan of None perspective is that it would still appeal to my sense of "streaks and improbable outcomes are fun" to see the Pats go all the way, but the "mocking foaming Pats haters" enjoyment may go down. And the "being happy that the Hubby is happy" aspect can be fulfilled by the Packers as well.


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 17, 2008)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Get your reality out of my peanut-butter, you illinoyance.  It's only your Packers fandom that keeps you above the riff-raff.




Hey, I grew up in Green Bay!  I only live down here in Flatland because this is where the jobs are.  And, one of these days, I'm going to pack up (pun not intended) and move back north across the Cheddar Curtain, back to the promised land.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jan 17, 2008)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> Hey, I grew up in Green Bay!  I only live down here in Flatland because this is where the jobs are.  And, one of these days, I'm going to pack up (pun not intended) and move back north across the Cheddar Curtain, back to the promised land.



I think the Packers are a neat team because of their public ownership. When the Red Sox were up for sale a few years ago, I advocated for Boston or the state to buy them - there was so much public investment in the team's infrastructure at the time, why not just go all the way and make it a real investment instead of hoping for a trickle back?


----------



## billd91 (Jan 17, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> On top of that, not only are they 2 wins away from having the greatest single season and being the greatest team in NFL history but also in all sports.  Period.




Well, when they manage to get another _*NINE*_ league championships to match the Packers record of _*TWELVE*_, then we'll consider them a candidate for the greatest team in NFL history.


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 17, 2008)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> I think the Packers are a neat team because of their public ownership.




I own a share of Packers stock; I bought it 6 or 7 years ago, when they had a stock sale to raise money for the reconstruction of Lambeau Field.

It's non-dividend-paying, and it's fundamentally only transferrable to next-of-kin (the Packers retain the first rights to buy the stock if I want to sell it).

I look at it as a $250 souvenir, and the right to get mad at "my employees" when they make stupid plays ("Dammit, Brett, think before you throw!!").


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 17, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Well, when they manage to get another _*NINE*_ league championships to match the Packers record of _*TWELVE*_, then we'll consider them a candidate for the greatest team in NFL history.




The players on that _team_ must have been a little long in the tooth, winning 12 championships between 1929 and the present. That is quite a feat, I'll admit.

Or were you referring to a franchise record?

Cause that's yet another conversation altogether.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 17, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Well, when they manage to get another _*NINE*_ league championships to match the Packers record of _*TWELVE*_, then we'll consider them a candidate for the greatest team in NFL history.




They are already a candidate for greatest team in NFL history, along with the 72 Dolphins, Steelers of the 70's, Niners of the 80's, Cowboys of the 90's, etc.

It's interesting that when comparing greatest NFL teams or dynasties, pre-Superbowl teams are usually not included in the discussion.  That's not my opinion, just stating what most "analysts" include in their comparisons.

Most wouldn't consider that to be the "modern era" of football.  Same with pre-Babe Ruth baseball.  It's commonly understood that Babe Ruth ushered in a new style of play in baseball.  You could argue that entirely different games and were played before then and is like comparing apples to oranges, even though they are within the same sport.


----------



## Goldmoon (Jan 17, 2008)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> Indeed...I haven't seen this much venom against a team in a long while.




Thats because never before has a team been blatently caught cheating like this before. Not to mention how light they got off.
Also, call me a crazy whacko nutjob but I honestly think that the Patcheats had help from the league in their perfect season so the league could more easily dismiss the cheating problem and make itself look better. Now, I'm a gal who loves her football but this whole thing has really turned me off from the NFL. I've lost confidence in the leagues integrity as a whole and I'm truly dissappointed in they way the whole thing was handled.


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 17, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> It's interesting that when comparing greatest NFL teams or dynasties, pre-Superbowl teams are usually not included in the discussion.  That's not my opinion, just stating what most "analysts" include in their comparisons.




Indeed; I think that there's several factors there:

1) Most of today's analysts weren't alive (or, at least, not following football) before the Super Bowl era

2) There's precious little film available for pre-1960 football (NFL Films began by filming the 1962 championship game, and started filming every single NFL game in 1963)

3) Before the late 50s or early 60s, pro football was not nearly as popular as college football (much less baseball) -- most consider the turning point to be the sudden-death 1958 championship game between the Colts and Giants.  Thus, the great teams of the earlier eras just didn't get as much attention from sports fans.

In the interest of completeness, that discussion should probably include:
- The Browns of the late 40s and 50s -- they won all four AAFC championships, then joined the NFL, and won the NFL title 3 times in 7 years (and lost the championship game another 3 times)
- The Bears of the WWII era -- they won 3 NFL championships in 4 years (and lost the championship game in the other year)
- The Packers of the late 30s - two championships, and a championship game loss, in 4 years
- You might also consider including the Chargers and Oilers from the early years of the AFL.

Those are just the "dynasties" from the pre-Super Bowl period; there were undoubtedly great one-season teams that I'm not remembering off the top of my head.


----------



## Hellefire (Jan 19, 2008)

Enough with the past, how about the future?

I am rooting for G.B. and S.D. tomorrow. Anyone else wanna weigh in?
Specifically, I'm gonna call G.B. by 13 and S.D. by 1.

Aaron


----------



## awayfarer (Jan 19, 2008)

I was seriously impressed by the Gaints/Pats game at the end of the season. I'm a bit torn about the outcome.

I would like the Giants to win because
1: They're an NFC East team, and if the Eagles can't win it I'd at least like to see a division win.
2: My home town in CT built a huge stadium several years ago after a proposed deal to bring the Pats there. The team backed out of it and now there's a huge useless stadium sitting two miles from where I grew up.
3: I tend to root for the underdog. I love it when a team that "shouldn't" win comes out on top (or even nearly does).

I would like the Pats to win because
1: New England. I'm pointlessly patriotic towards this region and feel the need to root for the home team.
2: Distance. I could blow my nose and hit Gilette stadium from where I live.
3: The angry, angry fans of every other team. I will enjoy listening to them for the next year.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 19, 2008)

I'm cheering for the Packers and Chargers to win, expecting the Pack and Pats.

But what I really don't want is a Giants / Pats Super Bowl. Who would care about that game outside of the northeast? Or even thinks that the Giants would have anything vaguely resembling a chance, the last week of the regular season nonwithstanding? Certainly not me.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 19, 2008)

Hellefire said:
			
		

> Enough with the past, how about the future?
> 
> I am rooting for G.B. and S.D. tomorrow. Anyone else wanna weigh in?
> Specifically, I'm gonna call G.B. by 13 and S.D. by 1.
> ...




I'm taking both home teams to win (NE and GB), but I don't think the Pack will cover:

PATS (-13.5) over SD
Giants (+7) over GB


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 19, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> but I don't think the Pack will cover




Yeah, that's a silly-high spread.  I suspect it's that high from all the crazed Packer fans. 

Most of the analysts I've seen online over the past few days expect a Packer win, but by less than a TD.

BTW, game-time weather:

Foxboro: 20 degrees, mostly cloudy, no precipitation, wind WNW 15 mph, wind chill 6 degrees.

Green Bay: 1 degree, partly cloudy, no precipitation, wind W 8 mph, wind chill -13 degrees.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 21, 2008)

Pats win!


----------



## drothgery (Jan 21, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Pats win!




In the process reminding us that yes, Norv Turner is in fact a bad coach. WTF was up with that last punt? They needed two scores!


----------



## Hellefire (Jan 21, 2008)

Well, first I was 2/4, then I was 0/2
Theres only 1 game left so I cant be minus 2 anyway.

NY in the superbowl....by 1.

Aaron


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 21, 2008)

Gads, that was a frustrating game to watch.

The pass defense couldn't get out of its own way, and the defense, as a whole, gave NY way too many chances, esp. with the penalties.

And, the offense didn't do a whole lot, other than the long pass to Driver.

Oh, well.


----------



## Rl'Halsinor (Jan 21, 2008)

Unfortunately Brett returned to his old form from the pass 5 years in the second half.  He was forcing passes and that interception in overtime killed the Pack's chances.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 21, 2008)

Finally, a nice, warm weather game that will allow the Pats offense to return to form and blow the Giants off the field.  Giants had a nice run through the playoffs but no one is stopping the Pats!


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 21, 2008)

Rl'Halsinor said:
			
		

> Unfortunately Brett returned to his old form from the pass 5 years in the second half.  He was forcing passes and that interception in overtime killed the Pack's chances.




Indeed.  If you give a kicker 3 tries at winning the game, sooner or later, he's going to hit one of them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 21, 2008)

I'm rooting for the Pats.

1) I'm soooooooo tired about hearing about the '72 Dolphins.

2) I still have a chip on my shoulder about Eli's egotistical demand that he didn't want to play for San Diego.



> Well, when they manage to get another NINE league championships to match the Packers record of TWELVE, then we'll consider them a candidate for the greatest team in NFL history.




The Packers have the great team _history_...but those championships were spread out in different decades.

I'd define "team" in this case as a particular core line-up of players.  Most people do when they talk about "greatest team ever," like Staubach's or Aikman's Cowboys, Montana's 49'rs, or Bradshaw's Steelers.  IOW, "Dynasty teams."

The Packers have 4 in the 1930's, plus one in 1929 and one in 1944.  They also have 5 in the 1960s.  The 12th was Favre's.

If the Pats win this time, that will be 4 in 7 years, including a perfect 19-0 season.  Their forseeable main competitors for the top will remain the Colts, Bolts, 'Boys & Pack (based on current perssonnel and organizational philosophy).  All of those would be with Brady at the helm- definitely a contender for the title of a "Dynasty" team, and consideration for "Greatest Ever."


----------



## Goldmoon (Jan 21, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> .
> If the Pats win this time, that will be 4 in 7 years, including a perfect 19-0 season.




And 3 of them (Possibly 4) are clouded/tainted with alligations of cheating. I have no doubt they will win the Super Bowl this year. I mean, from what Ive seen the last half of the year, It doesnt matter how bad they play, theyll get calls to go their way and somehow, amazingly the Giants will find a way to lose.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 21, 2008)

What?

Cheating in pro sports?

NO!

If you've ever listened to any of the interviews given by the retired NFL pros and their coaches, they'll tell you things like:

1) Holding occurs on every play.

2) Whenever there is a pile of players, people are being bitten, gonads are being punched or squeezed.

Besides, the cheating the Pats were accused of was minimal- what they learned through "cameragate" was available through other, legit sources.

Were the Bronco's victories "tainted" by the accusations of illegal chop blocks?  Was it cheating for a team to bring out a piece of grounds maintenance equipment to clear a spot in the snow for the FG kicker?


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 21, 2008)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> And 3 of them (Possibly 4) are clouded/tainted with alligations of cheating. I have no doubt they will win the Super Bowl this year. I mean, from what Ive seen the last half of the year, It doesnt matter how bad they play, theyll get calls to go their way and somehow, amazingly the Giants will find a way to lose.




LOL!!  

[Emperor Palpatine voice]Release your anger...[/Emperor Palpatine voice]   

Reading things like will make the Patriots victory even better.  I'm actually a little disappointed it's not the Packers because the Patriots would be universally scorned throughout the whole country even more than they are now.  

I actually think the Giants will give the Pats a better game than the Pack would have.

Edit:  By the way, Roger Goodell specifically said the NFL found no evidence that what the Pats did affected the outcome of any past game in the past, Superbowl or otherwise.  To still cling to the idea that their past victories are "tainted" is sour grapes and nothing else.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 21, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Edit:  By the way, Roger Goodell specifically said the NFL found no evidence that what the Pats did affected the outcome of any past game in the past, Superbowl or otherwise.  To still cling to the idea that their past victories are "tainted" is sour grapes and nothing else.




See, I think that's where a lot of people will disagree.

Just because what the Pats did didn't directly affect the outcome of the game doesn't mean their victories weren't tainted. In fact, I'd say it makes it worse, because they obviously didn't need to.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 21, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> See, I think that's where a lot of people will disagree.




What's to disagree about?  

The NFL said they found no evidence the Pats had taped anything in the past.  Period.  End of story.  So I guess you could argue that the NFL is lying about that but then I would go to back to my "sour grapes" statement.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 21, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> What's to disagree about?
> 
> The NFL said they found no evidence the Pats had taped anything in the past.  Period.  End of story.  So I guess you could argue that the NFL is lying about that but then I would go to back to my "sour grapes" statement.



 My argument is that cheating is cheating is cheating, no matter if it affected a game or not. Its still cheating. This argument doesn't settle only on the Pats, either...for me, at least, it goes for anyone or any team that cheats(there's a reason I avoid MLB discussions...)

Yes, the NFL found no evidence the Pats had done it in the past...but then again, I may be remembering this wrong, but wasn't it the Jets that brought the accusations, NOT the NFL? So, in a sense, if not for the Jets speaking up, the NFL wouldn't have found anything at all.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 21, 2008)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> All of those would be with Brady at the helm- definitely a contender for the title of a "Dynasty" team, and consideration for "Greatest Ever."




Consideration for second greatest team ever.  No one is ever going to go to 10 straight championship games and win seven of them like Otto Graham's Browns did.


----------



## Goldmoon (Jan 21, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> What's to disagree about?
> 
> The NFL said they found no evidence the Pats had taped anything in the past.  Period.  End of story.  So I guess you could argue that the NFL is lying about that but then I would go to back to my "sour grapes" statement.





Thats because they orderd the Patcheats to turn over all videos. Only an idiot actually believes they complied and gave up all their video tapes.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 21, 2008)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> Thats because they orderd the Patcheats to turn over all videos. Only an idiot actually believes they complied and gave up all their video tapes.




Then I guess the commissioner of the NFL is an idiot then.

I can't wait for all the delicious wine you guys will make with all of your sour grapes.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 21, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Then I guess the commissioner of the NFL is an idiot then.
> 
> I can't wait for all the delicious wine you guys will make with all of your sour grapes.



 Its not sour grapes to say they cheated and it taints their record.

Its the truth.

You can pass over it all you want, but its a fact that they cheated. Whether it actually changed the outcome of a game or not doesn't matter...they cheated. Cheating is cheating. Why that's okay to ignore is beyond me. 

Look, I'm not saying the Pats aren't good. Saying that is stupid, because they obviously ARE a great team. But that doesn't negate the fact that they cheated. You can't just say "Oh, they would have won anyway so its okay." because its not okay. It DOES taint their record, because they DID cheat. Cheating is against the rules. No matter the punishment they received, they still cheated.

The worst part about it, especially for the Pats, is they didn't need to. They're a good enough team not to need to cheat like they did, or at all. But they did. And that will always be there, tainting this season, and previous seasons now because people will always wonder.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 21, 2008)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> Thats because they orderd the Patcheats to turn over all videos. Only an idiot actually believes they complied and gave up all their video tapes.





Let me make this simple - don't call people here idiots.  

Really, everyone, it is that simple - don't insult people.  It isn't all that hard.  If you find you really cannot discuss the topic without belittling the intelligence of others, or otherwise trying to make them seem less than you, then I'll have to ask you to not discuss it at all.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 21, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Its not sour grapes to say they cheated and it taints their record.
> 
> Its the truth.




And QFT!   

The Pats cheated and got caught. Even if they do go all the way, their record this year will ALWAYS be tainted by that. 

It may be the Pat's Super Bowl party, but it's at Barry Bond's house.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 21, 2008)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> The Pats cheated and got caught. Even if they do go all the way, their record this year will ALWAYS be tainted by that.




I doubt it. I don't think it's going to be the asterisk some folks hope it is, at all. 

In fact I think most folks realize it's a pretty minor and petty infraction that has absolutely no bearing on the team's achievements this season (or any other).

In fact I'll go a step further, and suggest that folks who bring up the taping incident when other folks talk about the record-breaking season of Brady, Moss, and the Patriots as a team are going to marginalize themselves and look either wonky or silly, because the incident is irrelevant. It casts absolutely no doubt, other than an arcane procedural one.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 21, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I doubt it. I don't think it's going to be the asterisk some folks hope it is, at all.




I think you're exactly right, and that bothers me.

Not because I hate the Patriots...I don't. Pretty neutral on them, honestly.

But because it essentially means that cheating is okay. Now I don't care if its minor or any of that, its still cheating. It just feels wrong to me that we can accept it, or just blow it off with a 'oh, it had no bearing on the game', 'they were going to win anyway', or a 'it was minor'.

Are the days gone when cheating was bad, no matter how small it was?


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 21, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Are the days gone when cheating was bad, no matter how small it was?




If the cheating affects the outcome of games, it's the bad kind.  Spygate was akin to jaywalking.  Technically against the law but who cares?

Steroids, gambling on games in which you coach or play in, etc, have the potential to have a major effect on the outcome of games.

As Wulf mentioned, it's pretty much common knowledge that what the Patriots (which was against the rules) didn't give them any kind of competitive advantage.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 21, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Are the days gone when cheating was bad, no matter how small it was?




You keep coming back to this, because that's how you want to frame the question, but unfortunately that's not the situation. 

It was cheating because of _where_ and _how_ it was done. 

There is already an acceptance of opposition research in the league; and that acceptance is partially based on the fact that that kind of research is worth very little, anyway.

To use a dramatically hyperbolic example, it would be as if the NFL banned the use of black laces with white shoes, someone being punished for an infraction, and then afterwards saying, "Are the days gone when cheating was bad, no matter how small it was?"


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 21, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> To use a dramatically hyperbolic example, it would be as if the NFL banned the use of black laces with white shoes, someone being punished for an infraction, and then afterwards saying, "Are the days gone when cheating was bad, no matter how small it was?"




LOL, the NFL has pretty much done this many times.  Players getting fine for uniform infractions is pretty commonplace.  I think I recall an incident where a player wanted to pay tribute to another player by putting his number of the sleeve of his jersey (I'm not be recalling the exact situation but it was something to this effect).  Well the NFL fined the player.  No good deed goes unpunished in the NFL.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 21, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> If the cheating affects the outcome of games, it's the bad kind.  Spygate was akin to jaywalking.  Technically against the law but who cares?




It shows the character of the people involved.  In other walks of life outside of sports there is a well founded no tolerance of cheating.  Many schools don't put up with it and expel people for it.  I know in gaming I would kick out a cheater from my group even if it was akin to jaywalking.  

However, as we are finding out cheating has a long and glorious history in sports.  If you aren't cheating you aren't trying.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 21, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> LOL, the NFL has pretty much done this many times.  Players getting fine for uniform infractions is pretty commonplace.  I think I recall an incident where a player wanted to pay tribute to another player by putting his number of the sleeve of his jersey (I'm not be recalling the exact situation but it was something to this effect).  Well the NFL fined the player.  No good deed goes unpunished in the NFL.




When John Unitas died Petyon Manning asked the league's permission to wear the signature high tops and was told no so he didn't do it.  The QB for Baltimore at the time just went ahead and did it or something similar and was fined for it.  That might be what you are thinking of.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 21, 2008)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It shows the character of the people involved.




See, I thought the same thing when nobody on the Pats team groused about the  infraction, _knowing full well that everybody does it_, took their lumps in the media, paid the fine with no contest and no comment, and just moved on to dominate the season.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 21, 2008)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It shows the character of the people involved.  In other walks of life outside of sports there is a well founded no tolerance of cheating.  Many schools don't put up with it and expel people for it.  I know in gaming I would kick out a cheater from my group even if it was akin to jaywalking.




So you never jaywalked before?

I would equate jaywalking in D&D to someone who has read the Monster Manual tell other players in the group the monster's AC or something like that at the table.

You would kick that player out of your group?


----------



## Crothian (Jan 21, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> So you never jaywalked before?




Nope, I've seen to many blood on the pavement videos.  



> I would equate jaywalking in D&D to someone who has read the Monster Manual tell other players in the group the monster's AC or something like that at the table.
> 
> You would kick that player out of your group?




No, but I'd change the AC and tell him to stop doing it or he would be out.  

However, I think what the Patriots did was a little worse then jaywalking.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 21, 2008)

Crothian said:
			
		

> No, but I'd change the AC and tell him to stop doing it or he would be out.




Are the days gone when cheating was bad, no matter how small it was?


----------



## Crothian (Jan 21, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Are the days gone when cheating was bad, no matter how small it was?




I doubt it.  I hear Vegas still takes it seriously.

Edit: But friends that cheat in pointless games I play and cheaters of organized national sport teams of a Billion dollar industry are not remotely the same thing.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 21, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Are the days gone when cheating was bad, no matter how small it was?



 Hey now, its not fair to turn my words again Crothian. You're supposed to turn them against ME! 

I guess I don't really have a point other than it really does bother me, though. Crothian put it well when he said that we don't tolerate cheating in other aspects of life. That, combined with the "everyone else is doing it so we have to to keep up" mentality just...gets to me.

I don't hate the Pats and I'm not really even sure I'd support taking away their wins. But the comparison to jaywalking doesn't even really fit, nor anything involving the uniform violations. I'm not sure I can come up with a real comparison, myself. Its just that the video taping does have a chance to affect the actual game, even if it didn't. The problem is you can't prove whether it did or not, as its just one of those things that'll be left up in the air.

So many I shouldn't have said anything at all, as I'm not Pat hating or anything like that. It just bothers me and I do wonder if I'm the only one to feel like this about it.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jan 21, 2008)

In an abstract sense, is there a difference (in sports or otherwise) between breaking a rule and cheating? I mean, in football, every single time a penalty is called, that means a player broke the rules, right? In addition to in game penalties, it seems quite a few players get fined for infractions as well. Are they all "cheaters"? Or did they break rules and get the appropriate penalty for it?

I mean you can claim that any given late hit or holding call was accidental on the part of the penalized player, but then, you can claim that a coach misinterpreted the rules of where you could or couldn't tape from, too. 

Is there a rules infraction which does not make the person who did it a cheater? Is it accepting cheating to say yes, or demeaning "real" cheating* by saying no? 

*A bit of personal perspective on this, not precisly an argument, so feel free to ignore : [sblock]My highschool was fairly well known for wrestling - several state or regional championships under the same coach, lots of community pride, etc etc. Then they were caught cheating. And when I say cheating, I mean that at a home match, the team's recorded weigh ins, observed by the coach and under the responsibility of the assistant principal in charge of athletics, were 10 to 15 lbs lower than their weights when another team politely asked them to repeat those in public. It was a scandal, it was the end of a couple of careers, and it very much tainted past championships. In my mind, the taping incident with the Pats simply doesn't register in the same way. They observed something they were allowed to observe, but in a particular way that had been disallowed. I feel like some folks want it to be in the same dynasty tarnishing category as the weigh in scandal of my youth and that just doesn't click for me. [/sblock]


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 22, 2008)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> In an abstract sense, is there a difference (in sports or otherwise) between breaking a rule and cheating? I mean, in football, every single time a penalty is called, that means a player broke the rules, right? In addition to in game penalties, it seems quite a few players get fined for infractions as well. Are they all "cheaters"? Or did they break rules and get the appropriate penalty for it?




Well, with certain penalties, it's a fine line, IMO.

Some penalties, like offsides, false start, etc., are pretty clear, and a case of a player violating a hard-and-fast rule (i.e., you don't cross the line of scrimmage before the play starts).

Penalties like holding, on the other hand...this is an illegal maneuver that pretty much happens on *every* play.  It's when it gets egregious, or the offending player does it right in front of the official, that it gets called.

From that standpoint, there's "cheating" going on during every play.  The players learn how to do it so that it doesn't usually get called by the officials, that's all.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 22, 2008)

Crothian said:
			
		

> But friends that cheat in pointless games I play and cheaters of organized national sport teams of a Billion dollar industry are not remotely the same thing.




Are the days gone when cheating was bad, no matter how small it was?

I believe that's what AMG was getting at, but I'm perfectly willing to split hairs further, and discuss exactly what constitutes "bad" cheating in games "pointless" and otherwise. I have some opinions on what constitutes "bad" cheating in the NFL and how relevant it is to the Pats record-breaking season this year.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 22, 2008)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> Well, with certain penalties, it's a fine line, IMO.
> 
> Some penalties, like offsides, false start, etc., are pretty clear, and a case of a player violating a hard-and-fast rule (i.e., you don't cross the line of scrimmage before the play starts).




Incidentally, this is why I'd like the NFL and college ball to standardize on a few rules. The college rules on sideline catches (you only need one foot in, but you're allowed to force the guy out) and whether someone's down or not (because it's often hard to tell if someone's been touched) and the NFL timing rules (because there are so many judgement calls in starting the play clock in college).



			
				kenobi65 said:
			
		

> Penalties like holding, on the other hand...this is an illegal maneuver that pretty much happens on *every* play.  It's when it gets egregious, or the offending player does it right in front of the official, that it gets called.




It seems to me that you ought to be able to write the rules for holding in such a way that there's not holding on every play, but the behavior you want to ban is illegal. Maybe it's just me.


----------



## Goldmoon (Jan 22, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Let me make this simple - don't call people here idiots.
> 
> Really, everyone, it is that simple - don't insult people.  It isn't all that hard.  If you find you really cannot discuss the topic without belittling the intelligence of others, or otherwise trying to make them seem less than you, then I'll have to ask you to not discuss it at all.




_If you want to comment on something a mod has said, please email them rather than do it in the thread.

Thanks - Plane Sailing_


----------



## ClashmoreDave (Jan 22, 2008)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> LOL.  Sounds like he was a kid at the time, and may not have spent much (if any) time on campus.
> 
> I spent 6 years there, getting my bachelor's degree, then my master's.  And, by the end, I was ready to go somewhere else, so I could experience reality.




Yep. Nothing sinister intended. My folks moved (job relocation), so being a little boy, I didn't have much say in the matter <g>.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 22, 2008)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> Cheating is cheating, regarless of the type or relivance. The Pacheats record this season is tarnished by it.




Actually, it's pretty obvious, just from this thread alone, that cheating isn't cheating, regardless of type.  There are many shades of gray.  And you are certainly in the minority who thinks there season is tainted because of it.



> [Obviously bitter]By the way, did anyone mention that it took Moss 16 games to break a record that was set in only 12?[/Obviously bitter]




So is his record tarnished too?  Give it a rest.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 22, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> And you are certainly in the minority who thinks there season is tainted because of it.




Listening to talk radio and such places it seems there are plenty who feel the season should be tainted because of it.


----------



## Goldmoon (Jan 22, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Actually, it's pretty obvious, just from this thread alone, that cheating isn't cheating, regardless of type.  There are many shades of gray.  And you are certainly in the minority who thinks there season is tainted because of it.




Thats the real problem here as far as I'm concerned. I dont understand how this got so swept under the rug. It should have been a huge deal yet, some how its all but forgotten.





			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> So is his record tarnished too?  Give it a rest.




Now youre just trying to start something. My Moss comment was obviously not serious. Did you notice the tags on it?


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 22, 2008)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> Thats the real problem here as far as I'm concerned. I dont understand how this got so swept under the rug. It should have been a huge deal yet, some how its all but forgotten.




That's because it's _not _ a huge deal.  You sound like Peter King.  Every team does it and/or recognizes it doesn't give a competitive advantage, the Pats paid the price/fine, and complied with all demands as required by the league.  The league also specifically said that what the Pats did not affect the outcome of any game, past or present.  Why _should _it continue?  I mean really, what more do you want?  

I find equally ridiculous that people are trying to make an issue our of something that just isn't there based on their personal vendetta against the Pats.  I mean if the 49ers or Cardinals did this, would anyone care?  No.



> Now youre just trying to start something. My Moss comment was obviously not serious. Did you notice the tags on it?




I can't really tell what your intent is based on your previous posts in this thread.


----------



## Goldmoon (Jan 22, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I find equally ridiculous that people are trying to make an issue our of something that just isn't there based on their personal vendetta against the Pats.  I mean if the 49ers or Cardinals did this, would anyone care?  No.




Youre probably right there, fewer people would care if it were a team that wasnt doing well but that doesnt make it right. I would still be just as upset about it. I'm just saddened that thets not the case with most people.


----------



## Crothian (Jan 22, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I find equally ridiculous that people are trying to make an issue our of something that just isn't there based on their personal vendetta against the Pats.  I mean if the 49ers or Cardinals did this, would anyone care?  No.




What's not there?  The Patriots did cheat.  They got caught and punished for it.  And if the Arizona Cardinals were caught cheating the same year they went 18-0 leading up to the Super Bowl people would care.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jan 22, 2008)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Listening to talk radio and such places it seems there are plenty who feel the season should be tainted because of it.



hrm perhaps I'm overparsing based on sleep deprivation, but I don't think "tainted" is the right term. To me it implies that the accomplishments of the season are delegitimized - Bonds' home run record was tainted by steroid use because there is a serious question of whether it would have happened without the steroids. The taping on the other hand was a rules infraction, seriousness seemingly an open question, but I have yet to see a compelling argument that the accomplishments of the season would not have happened without the taping. 

I think it would be fair to say that the incident may mar the memory of the season for some fans. That is, a perfect win season is better without a major penalty than a perfect win season with it. But to my mind, if the Pats win the superbowl, they will have a perfect win season. Not a tainted, questionable one, just one that could have had slightly better publicity.


----------



## Hellefire (Jan 22, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Every team does it and/or recognizes it doesn't give a competitive advantage





Did you just say that every team that believes it gives a competitive advantage, cheats? And some that don't think it does, cheat anyway?

I may be naive in a kid-playing-Pop-Warner/Mighty Ducks kinda way, but I like to think that some teams/players/coaches still concentrate on athletic skill and actually try to avoid cheating.

One last comment on the subject - I fall in the 'minority' that thinks it tarnishes their season. I don't have a vendetta against the Pats - I don't like or dislike them, I just don't like the idea. Actually, if we add personal feelings into the mix, I'd be most upset if my favorite team (Dallas) did it - I'd be disappointed in them to the nth degree. I might be more vocal about it if it was a team I did vehemently oppose. As it is, well, it's the Patriots. To borrow a line from Wayne's World, 'Here we are in....Delaware' (no offense to you Delawarians out there ).


Now, back to our regularly scheduled program. While I do not and would not like to have control over what people discuss, it keeps things interesting, but the main point of this thread was to discuss who is going to win. Sooooo...

Want to win: Giants. They knocked off my Cowboys and the Packers, both in their opponents home stadiums. Would be cool to see a wildcard team win the SB, and it would validate my 'Boys losing. And if a team is gonna have a perfect season/post-season I'd rather it be a team I care about. Too bad the Giants are another team I have exactly zero feelings for, but thats just the way it goes sometimes.

Pick to win: Hard to go against the Patriots, but I did see lots of determination by the Giants. I'm still going to say N.Y. by 1 - 17-16.

Aaron


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 22, 2008)

Good post Kahuna.  I think that's my main gripe with this issue, specifically the word "tainted".

Tainted has been used extensively to describe Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds.  Why?  Because there is strong evidence that they wouldn't have been able to do what they did without steroids.  Steroids gave them an advantage.

The Patriots broke the rules.  There's no doubt about it.   But it's common knowledge that it didn't give them any real advantage and if it did, it wasn't enough to affect the outcome of games.  Again, the NFL has verified this.  

Would anyone say that the Patriots wouldn't have beaten the Jets that game if they didn't tape signals?  Not unless you wanted to be a laughing stock.  You'd have a better argument in saying that the reason the Pats went undefeated is because Mangini essentially hit the hornets' nest with a stick and made the Pats mad.    

I would even say that the word "cheat" implies that they did something to gain an advantage.  I'm not even sure that applies here.  

Do I condone what the Pats did?  Absolutely not.  I wish it never happened.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 22, 2008)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> I'm just saddened that thets not the case with most people.




Why would you expect most people to care about a trivial thing that has no bearing on the accomplishments of the season?

Just add it to the huge list of other trivial things that most people don't care about.


----------



## Goldmoon (Jan 23, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> Good post Kahuna.  I think that's my main gripe with this issue, specifically the word "tainted".
> 
> Tainted has been used extensively to describe Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds.  Why?  Because there is strong evidence that they wouldn't have been able to do what they did without steroids.  Steroids gave them an advantage.
> 
> ...





Emphasis mine.

Yes, they verifyed it *based on tapes supplied by the Pats.* I don't believe for one minute that they turned over evidence that would further incriminate them. I'm sure a lot of tapes were hidden/destroyed rather than turned in. You dont ask the guilty to further prove their guilt......


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jan 23, 2008)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> Emphasis mine.
> 
> Yes, they verifyed it *based on tapes supplied by the Pats.* I don't believe for one minute that they turned over evidence that would further incriminate them. I'm sure a lot of tapes were hidden/destroyed rather than turned in. You dont ask the guilty to further prove their guilt......



You've mentioned this before.... the problem is, that it can also be used to argue that the infraction was not a big deal. I mean, it looks like the NFL fined them and said "stop that". They didn't worry about how much it had happened, because the issue was the Pats breaking a rule that had been set, not the sliver of competitive advantage it might have gained them in a possible prior offense.

Or alternately, it was such a horribly big deal that digging for more evidence would reveal how deep the corruption went and topple the entire league, destroying American faith in the integrity of football and relegating the entire sport to less than hockey* status, while the WNBA** takes its true place as the national sports organization. But since that looks to me like Black Helicopter*** level conspiracy theorisism, I continue to view the situation as a rules infraction that was dealt with rather than a tainting scandal.

*No offense to hockey fans.

**Or women's basketball fans.

***Or people being trailed by Black Helicopters.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 23, 2008)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> Emphasis mine.
> 
> Yes, they verifyed it *based on tapes supplied by the Pats.* I don't believe for one minute that they turned over evidence that would further incriminate them. I'm sure a lot of tapes were hidden/destroyed rather than turned in. You dont ask the guilty to further prove their guilt......




So basically you are saying that there is nothing the Patriots could have done, even fulfilling all the requirements as explicitly stated by the NFL, that would convince you that the infraction didn't go beyond the Jets game.

As I said before in this thread, you feeling on this matter is best classified as "sour grapes" towards the Patriots and would be drastically different if this happened to another team.

EDIT: Reference to the Patriots winning the Superbowl removed so as not to jinx them any further than I have already.  My apologies to Pats fans!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 23, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I'll enjoy a big heaping plate of crow if I'm not more careful.




Were we not just talking about jinxing the Pats in the last 20 minutes?

_Dude._ 

Dude.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 23, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Were we not just talking about jinxing the Pats in the last 20 minutes?
> 
> _Dude._
> 
> Dude.




I know, I know, my bad, but this thread has me all worked up!!


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 23, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I know, I know, my bad, but this thread has me all worked up!!




If it's anything like mentioning the name of The Scotish Play in a theater, there are certain rituals that MUST be performed to purge the offense. 

After some extensive research, here's what you're going to have to do: you're going to have to wear a pink and white Patriots jersey with matching Joe Namath-approved panty hose (because the Pats cheated against the Jets - the friggin' Jets!) around town until the opening coin toss...

High heals are optional. Otherwise, it don't look good for the Pats...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 23, 2008)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> High heals are optional.




Like, 6th level? 

Or would cure critical wounds do it?


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 23, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Like, 6th level?
> 
> Or would cure critical wounds do it?




Atonement might do the trick.


----------



## Goldmoon (Jan 23, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> So basically you are saying that there is nothing the Patriots could have done, even fulfilling all the requirements as explicitly stated by the NFL, that would convince you that the infraction didn't go beyond the Jets game.




No, there isnt. We already know they did it in other games in previous years. There were complaints about it long before the Jets game. Heck, the only reson they were caught is because the Jets coach used to do the same thing for the Pats when he worked for them. Theyve been cheating for years now.



			
				GlassJaw said:
			
		

> As I said before in this thread, you feeling on this matter is best classified as "sour grapes" towards the Patriots and would be drastically different if this happened to another team.
> 
> EDIT: Reference to the Patriots winning the Superbowl removed so as not to jinx them any further than I have already.  My apologies to Pats fans!




No, thats not true at all. I have never been a Patcheats fan but I have never had anything against them. I would feel this way if any team had got caught cheating and it had been made such a trivial thing.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jan 23, 2008)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> No, thats not true at all. I have never been a Patcheats fan but I have never had anything against them. I would feel this way if any team had got caught cheating and it had been made such a trivial thing.



So when you said "Put a helmet into Brady's knee or something," that was an expression of your feelings on cheating? 

_*psst* Pretty sure deliberately injuring a player to gain a competitive advantage is what we call "cheating"_


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 23, 2008)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> I would feel this way if any team had got caught cheating and it had been made such a trivial thing.




And I say you wouldn't feel the same way.  It was made trivial because that's exactly what it was.  Why do you continue to claim to have more insight than the NFL and the commissioner on this issue?


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jan 23, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> And I say you wouldn't feel the same way.  It was made trivial because that's exactly what it was.  Why do you continue to claim to have more insight than the NFL and the commissioner on this issue?



Glass, IANAM, but I think that arguing with someone about how they feel is impolite. I agree that claims of trivializing the essentially trivial are a little weird, though. I mean, they taped something that they were allowed to look at but not tape. It's not like they were wiretapping the freaking helmet headsets or sent a strike team to take spy pictures of the opposing team's playbook. They violated the rules on HOW they could observe something they are allowed to observe, they got fined, they lost a draft pick, the end. How can you "make" the situation any more trivial most of a season later than is already is?


----------



## Goldmoon (Jan 23, 2008)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> So when you said "Put a helmet into Brady's knee or something," that was an expression of your feelings on cheating?
> 
> _*psst* Pretty sure deliberately injuring a player to gain a competitive advantage is what we call "cheating"_




Yes, that was a little excessive. I just wanted someone to stop them from winning every game this year. The fact that they were caught cheating and then won every game could send a bad message to kids everywhere.


----------



## Goldmoon (Jan 23, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> And I say you wouldn't feel the same way.  It was made trivial because that's exactly what it was.  Why do you continue to claim to have more insight than the NFL and the commissioner on this issue?




You can't possiblt know how I'd feel and I dont claim to have more insight than the NFL but I do calm that the NFL is conspiring to "downplay" the incident and sweep it under the rug so as not to tarnish the league intregity. Say I'm looking for black helicopters all you want but I dont believe for one second that the public was made aware of everything nor do I believe that the Patcheats earned every win this year. I'm not saying that the outcome overall would be different but I am saying that they wouldnt have had a perfect season without help from the NFL. Ive seen too many calls go their way whan it was most convienent and Ive seen too many coaches suddenly get stupid and lose the game against them in the second half.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 23, 2008)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> I am saying that they wouldnt have had a perfect season without help from the NFL. Ive seen too many calls go their way whan it was most convienent




Ok, ok, heard this before... let's see... what's next...



> and Ive seen too many coaches suddenly get stupid and lose the game against them in the second half.




annnnd WHAT?

GOOD GOD ALMIGHTY.

Are you seriously suggesting that there are actually COACHES engaging in a conspiracy to fix the NFL?

You really need a vacation. That is some Grade A crazy.

EDIT: That's quite a slam on anybody whose favorite team lost to the Pats this year. I bet you didn't even realize your coach was a cheater, too.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 23, 2008)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> Ive seen too many calls go their way whan it was most convienent and Ive seen too many coaches suddenly get stupid and lose the game against them in the second half.




I wish you posted this in the first page of this thread.  That way it would have saved me 4 pages of going back and forth with someone whose sanity is now called into question.


----------



## Goldmoon (Jan 23, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I wish you posted this in the first page of this thread.  That way it would have saved me 4 pages of going back and forth with someone whose sanity is now called into question.




Yes, Im crazy because I dont believe everything the NFL and the media tell me....


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 23, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> EDIT: That's quite a slam on anybody whose favorite team lost to the Pats this year. I bet you didn't even realize your coach was a cheater, too.




All the Patriots games this year were basically of two types:
1.  A blowout, in which it really didn't matter what the team did in the second half, or
2.  A very close game, in which both teams were fighting tooth and nail to try to win.

The only game in which "calls" occurred toward the end was the Ravens game, and that had everything to do with the Ravens losing their composure and nothing to do with any ref who got paid off.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 23, 2008)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> Yes, Im crazy because I dont believe everything the NFL and the media tell me....




Do you need those special Roddy Piper sunglasses to watch the NFL in your house?


----------



## Goldmoon (Jan 23, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Do you need those special Roddy Piper sunglasses to watch the NFL in your house?




No, Im not blinded by shiny records, do you?


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jan 23, 2008)

Goldmoon said:
			
		

> No, Im not blinded by shiny records, do you?



He was making a slightly obscure film reference. They Live.


----------



## Goldmoon (Jan 23, 2008)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> He was making a slightly obscure film reference. They Live.




I know, Ive seen it. Im saying I'm not blinded by what the NFL presents as fact.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 23, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Like, 6th level?
> 
> Or would cure critical wounds do it?




You better hope someone casts that on Tom Brady's foot...   

That typo really was intentional, no really, it was!


----------



## Goldmoon (Jan 24, 2008)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> You better hope someone casts that on Tom Brady's foot...
> 
> That typo really was intentional, no really, it was!




I rather enjoyed the lighthearted pun....


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 24, 2008)

Too late!

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/01/24/2008-01-24_tony_romo_punts_jessica_simpson.html


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 24, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Too late!
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/01/24/2008-01-24_tony_romo_punts_jessica_simpson.html




hee hee


----------



## Hellefire (Jan 25, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Too late!
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/01/24/2008-01-24_tony_romo_punts_jessica_simpson.html





Soooo.....Shes available!!! 

Aaron


----------



## Hellefire (Jan 28, 2008)

6 days and counting....

anyone else gonna step up and predict a score, or at least a winner?

Aaron

p.s. - Just to move my prediction to the same general area of the thread...

NY 17 - 16 NE


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 28, 2008)

Hellefire said:
			
		

> anyone else gonna step up and predict a score, or at least a winner?




Pats 31 - Giants 21

At least, that's what the dartboard tells me.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jan 28, 2008)

Hellefire said:
			
		

> anyone else gonna step up and predict a score, or at least a winner?




I think Wulf is in the ballpark.  Not sure I'd take the Pats to cover though - line is currently at Pats (-12).


----------



## drothgery (Jan 28, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Pats 31 - Giants 21
> 
> At least, that's what the dartboard tells me.




Seems like a pretty good guess.

Sigh.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Jan 29, 2008)

Giants 23, Pats 21.  Last second field goal.


----------



## awayfarer (Jan 29, 2008)

Giants 17
a three foot tall Ditka 23


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 29, 2008)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> Giants 23, Pats 21.  Last second field goal.




Does he get 3 tries at it again?


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 29, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Does he get 3 tries at it again?




Really.  A .333 average gets you a big contract if you're a first baseman. If you're a placekicker, it usually gets you some lovely parting gifts, and a one-way ticket back to Scotland.


----------



## Hellefire (Feb 2, 2008)

T minus tomorrow and counting.
Go Giants, its your birthday.

Aaron


----------



## Hellefire (Feb 3, 2008)

And we're off and...pregaming??
dammit man, how may hours does pregame last???

Aaron


----------



## awayfarer (Feb 4, 2008)

7-3, awesome.

I'll be happy no matter who wins.


----------



## Hellefire (Feb 4, 2008)

Woot!!!
17-14, so I was 2 points off (called 17-16) so sue me 
Grats Giants!!


----------



## awayfarer (Feb 4, 2008)

Oh my      -ing god the Giants won!


----------



## Hellefire (Feb 4, 2008)

OK, trivia question for everyone...

How many times have wildcard teams won the superbowl?

Aaron


----------



## awayfarer (Feb 4, 2008)

Hellefire said:
			
		

> OK, trivia question for everyone...
> 
> How many times have wildcard teams won the superbowl?
> 
> Aaron




IIRC this is only the second time. They mentioned it during the game.


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 4, 2008)

*Big Blue Comes Through*

GO GIANTS!!!!   

What an amazing game - one of the better ones in Super Bowl history.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Feb 4, 2008)

That was a great game and not only do the Giants deserve that win, the Pats deserved to lose. 

The question for tomorrow is,

"4th and 13... and you go for it? WTF?"

Boy, would sure like to have had that field goal...


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 4, 2008)

My friends and I were talking after the game and realized something. This is the first big victory for a New York team post 9/11. I know it sounds trivial, but we've needed something like this for awhile, and it was nice to experience this feeling again. It's been awhile since we've been to a parade in the Canyon of Hereos. Here's to the first of many more!

And congratulations to the Patriots for playing a great game and having such an awesome season otherwise.


----------



## Jaws (Feb 4, 2008)

Hellefire said:
			
		

> OK, trivia question for everyone...
> 
> How many times have wildcard teams won the superbowl?
> 
> Aaron



Five.


j.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Feb 4, 2008)

Twenty years from now when we are watching NFL Film highlights of this game:

1) 4th and 13

2) Manning squirming out of the pocket and nailing that pass. (Watching him just slip out of the grasp of the defense was a metaphor for the perfect season doing the same...)

3) The total domination of the Giants defense. Next to the Pats losing the game, the biggest travesty of the game was that entire Giants defensive line not getting MVP. They won. the. game.

Anybody who says the Pats played a great game-- Your graciousness is appreciated, but no... no they did not.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 4, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Anybody who says the Pats played a great game-- Your graciousness is appreciated, but no... no they did not.



No, they really didn't. I SO wanted them to, but the Giants deserved that win. Damn 'em.


----------



## drothgery (Feb 4, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> That was a great game and not only do the Giants deserve that win, the Pats deserved to lose.
> 
> The question for tomorrow is,
> 
> ...




Even with a good kicker in a dome, a 48 yard field goal is not a sure thing, and a punt from there was worthless. It's not a bad move to go for it.


----------



## GlassJaw (Feb 4, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Anybody who says the Pats played a great game-- Your graciousness is appreciated, but no... no they did not.




That pretty much sums it up.  They played the complete opposite of how they played the rest of the season.  They were extremely conservative and could never really get on track.  Major props to the Giants defense.  The Giants killed the Pats on 3rd-down conversions.  The Pats just couldn't stop them when they had to.

It was the Pats-Rams all over again, except this time the Pats were Goliath.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Feb 4, 2008)

Things to be sad about :

1) A truely perfect season would have been interesting to see.

2) The hubby could have used some cheering up this weekend.

Things to be happy about :

1) The taping violation will finally be let go and fade to it's true insignificance.

2) from what I heard, they were planning that a potential victory parade would take place tommorow, during the polling, even though it could block polling stations. Call me a grump, but NO sports event is worth disrupting ANY election. 

So no big cheers or tears over here. Then again I was napping through most of the game.


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 4, 2008)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> 1) The taping violation will finally be let go and fade to it's true insignificance.




Not really, because it stands as a great example that will stand the test of time to re-enforce a valuable lesson to the kids out there: 

CHEATERS NEVER WIN!   

Sorry, I really should let this go now...


----------



## Olaf the Stout (Feb 4, 2008)

Wow....just Wow!!!!    

That was the best NFL game I have seen.  And I say this as a Cowboys fan who watched all 3 of their 90's Superbowl victories.  Sure, the game may not have been high scoring, but damn if it wasn't exciting.

In Australia the game was on from about 9:30am onwards so I had to tape it and somehow not see the result on the internet during the day.  Miraculously I managed to do that and boy was I glad that I did.  My wife said a couple of things to me about the game that she had seen on the news that made me think the Pats had won it (she knows absolutely nothing about American football).

I was watching the last quarter, waiting to see when the Pat's would finally break it open.  When they scored to go up 14-10 I thought, "Ok, that must be it then."  Apparently not.

Even after the Giants managed to score their second TD, I still thought that the Pat's would take it down the field, score a field goal and send it into OT.  Nope.

The Giants defence had just about as good a game as I have seen.  The defensive coordinator was the MVP for mine.  Even with the awesome game the defence played though I still thought that the Giants were going to lose.  Their offence just couldn't get the ball down the field after that big opening drive at the start of the game.

For most of the game the Giant's offence pretty much sucked.  Manning wasn't doing a lot wrong but the receivers couldn't seem to hang on to the ball.  Yes, some of his passes could have been a little better directed, but at that level you should be catching those.  The interception should have been an incomplete pass at the very worst.  How he managed to bobble the ball into the air I don't know.

In the end though the players stepped up when they needed to.  The clutch pass by Manning while slipping out from 2 tacklers was awesome.  The catch by Tyree, pinning the ball to his helmet at one point, with 3 players covering him was even better.

All in all it was an awesome game.  It was about 11:30pm by the time I had seen the end.  Even still I didn't get to sleep until after midnight since I was still buzzing from the game.  And this is from someone who doesn't even support either team!  I can't imagine what I would have been like if the Cowboys were playing!    

Olaf the Stout


----------



## kenobi65 (Feb 4, 2008)

The last quarter was pretty dang riveting.  I'm not sure if it was the best game I've ever seen, but it was definitely one of the most exciting Super Bowls.



			
				Olaf the Stout said:
			
		

> The clutch pass by Manning while slipping out from 2 tacklers was awesome.  The catch by Tyree, pinning the ball to his helmet at one point, with 3 players covering him was even better.




That play was just jaw-dropping.  Though, I can't see David Tyree, without thinking about the old Y-Wing pilot from "A New Hope": "Lost Tyree, lost Dutch..."


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Feb 5, 2008)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> Not really, because it stands as a great example that will stand the test of time to re-enforce a valuable lesson to the kids out there:
> 
> CHEATERS NEVER WIN!
> 
> Sorry, I really should let this go now...



Were any penalties called on the Giants during the game? Guess "cheaters" won. Those poor confused kids.   Bet there might even be a couple of players on the team who have been fined by the nfl.   

I will go out on a limb here and say that no team will ever win the superbowl without a rules violation. It falls on the critics of the Pats to show that their rules violation was so incredibly heinous compared to any other, and from a mostly disinterested sideline, they haven't.


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 5, 2008)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Were any penalties called on the Giants during the game? Guess "cheaters" won. Those poor confused kids.   Bet there might even be a couple of players on the team who have been fined by the nfl.
> 
> I will go out on a limb here and say that no team will ever win the superbowl without a rules violation. It falls on the critics of the Pats to show that their rules violation was so incredibly heinous compared to any other, and from a mostly disinterested sideline, they haven't.




Penalties are part of the game. Videotaping signs like the Pats did against the Jets (the friggin' Jets of all teams no less)? Not so much...


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Feb 5, 2008)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> Penalties are part of the game. Videotaping signs like the Pats did against the Jets (the friggin' Jets of all teams no less)? Not so much...



This assertion has become less and less compelling to me the more I learn about the precise rule violation. You are just saying that breaking the rules is part of the game, but breaking the rules is unacceptable, without explaining why.


----------



## Inferno! (Feb 5, 2008)

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> What an awesome weekend - Colts lose, Cowboys lose, and Patriots WIN WIN WIN!!!
> 
> I couldn't have asked for anything more.




I don't usually like the Giants, but hey I like anybody that beats the Patriots


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 5, 2008)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> This assertion has become less and less compelling to me the more I learn about the precise rule violation. You are just saying that breaking the rules is part of the game, but breaking the rules is unacceptable, without explaining why.




Actually, I'm saying that only the Pats and their fans thought nothing of the cheating scandal. 

But it's all moot. There's no record to put an asterisk after now!


----------

