Brady sucks now

[Bear Pand]

And tell me how extra video taping gives any sort of leg up. Also prove other teams were not doing it because the scuttlebutt back then was many teams were doing it including Mangina's Jets.

This story is way overblown and you're trolling. I don't want stats, I want reasons why you think extra videoing gives a big advantage.

Let me preface this by saying that I agree the story was overblown but:

A. It's ridiculous to say that other teams were doing it and ask for proof they weren't. The difference between the Pats and other teams is we know they were doing it. The burden of proof is on you.

B. Look at their defenses. Some of the teams that had the biggest issue with the Pats cheating, (see: concerns from the Rams about them videotaping walkthroughs and concerns from Peyton Manning / Colts offense about being spied on in the locker room) were from teams that made their $$ offensively. Since spygate the Pats have been ass on D despite having Belichick a supposed defensive coach.

Now I'm not going to say that spygate is the primary reason for their decline on D. There's other factors, rule changes (5 yard contact, no longer being allowed to fake injuries on D), personnel changes and changes in overall team strategy. But not being able to cheat had to have some negative impact on their inability to scheme as well on defense. We're supposed to believe the Pats were just out there cheating without getting any benefit from it?

[ssags11]

And you still haven't explained how videoing gives a team any benefit over another team, you just keep saying the D is not as good. Zero proof there was videoing in the locker room going on. The supposed walkthrough tape of the Rams was proven false by the NFL and the tabloid newspaper Boston Herard that made the accusation issued an apology. Their source was full of shit.

I blame the average defensive teams since 2005/6 on horrible drafting by Belichick, losing his draft partner in Pioli and the heart and soul and stars of those defenses from the SB teams all retired/injured or traded by 2005. They are a bunch of scrubs back there now and have been since 2005. Bruschi was hurt every season after 2005, Harrison hurt after 2005, Seymour traded, Warren faded, Phifer retired, Colvin injured, McGinnest traded.


Nor does it explain since Spygate, The Pats have the best record in the NFL from 2005 to 2012 and a better record than they did from 2000 to 2005 during Spygate. Two more SB appearances that were decided by a stupidly lucky catch and than the once reliable Welker drops a pass. Take those two plays out of it the Pats have two more rings and you would never be uttering another word about this. Two lousy lucky (bad or good) plays from winning those 2 SBs. That's it.

So, again tell me HOW it gives a team an advantage. Because the stats says the Patriots have been a better team since Spygate not worse. If those two losses in the Superbowl is all you have as evidence that videoing helped the Pats win, you might as well make yourself a nice cup of tea and go to sleep for the night.

[ram29jackson]

And you still haven't explained how videoing gives a team any benefit over another team, you just keep saying the D is not as good. Zero proof there was videoing in the locker room going on. The supposed walkthrough tape of the Rams was proven false by the NFL and the tabloid newspaper Boston Herard that made the accusation issued an apology. Their source was full of shit.

I blame the average defensive teams since 2005/6 on horrible drafting by Belichick, losing his draft partner in Pioli and the heart and soul and stars of those defenses from the SB teams all retired/injured or traded by 2005. They are a bunch of scrubs back there now and have been since 2005. Bruschi was hurt every season after 2005, Harrison hurt after 2005, Seymour traded, Warren faded, Phifer retired, Colvin injured, McGinnest traded.


Nor does it explain since Spygate, The Pats have the best record in the NFL from 2005 to 2012 and a better record than they did from 2000 to 2005 during Spygate. Two more SB appearances that were decided by a stupidly lucky catch and than the once reliable Welker drops a pass. Take those two plays out of it the Pats have two more rings and you would never be uttering another word about this. Two lousy lucky (bad or good) plays from winning those 2 SBs. That's it.

So, again tell me HOW it gives a team an advantage. Because the stats says the Patriots have been a better team since Spygate not worse. If those two losses in the Superbowl is all you have as evidence that videoing helped the Pats win, you might as well make yourself a nice cup of tea and go to sleep for the night.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I love myopic homer fans.

better is somewhat relative...they havent won in the playoffs ..or rather, they have only won enough to be the ultimate loser the last 4 years. We are talking post season.

If regular season was so important, The Dan fouts lead Chargers and Dan Marino Miami Dolphins would be remembered as great teams, but thay arent.


this is all silly, Brady's a great player/QB no matter what. But in a way they have been like the 70s Vikings and 90s Bills. A whole bunch of grandiose hoopla for nothing but bupkiss the last 4 years.

[Bear Pand]

And you still haven't explained how videoing gives a team any benefit over another team, you just keep saying the D is not as good. Zero proof there was videoing in the locker room going on. The supposed walkthrough tape of the Rams was proven false by the NFL and the tabloid newspaper Boston Herard that made the accusation issued an apology. Their source was full of shit.

I blame the average defensive teams since 2005/6 on horrible drafting by Belichick, losing his draft partner in Pioli and the heart and soul and stars of those defenses from the SB teams all retired/injured or traded by 2005. They are a bunch of scrubs back there now and have been since 2005. Bruschi was hurt every season after 2005, Harrison hurt after 2005, Seymour traded, Warren faded, Phifer retired, Colvin injured, McGinnest traded.


Nor does it explain since Spygate, The Pats have the best record in the NFL from 2005 to 2012 and a better record than they did from 2000 to 2005 during Spygate. Two more SB appearances that were decided by a stupidly lucky catch and than the once reliable Welker drops a pass. Take those two plays out of it the Pats have two more rings and you would never be uttering another word about this. Two lousy lucky (bad or good) plays from winning those 2 SBs. That's it.

So, again tell me HOW it gives a team an advantage. Because the stats says the Patriots have been a better team since Spygate not worse. If those two losses in the Superbowl is all you have as evidence that videoing helped the Pats win, you might as well make yourself a nice cup of tea and go to sleep for the night.

What do you meant I keep saying? This is the first time I've said anything about it.

And what are you talking about the two SB losses is all I have as evidence? I didn't even mention those.

Even had the Pats won both SBs against the Giants it doesn't change the fact that their effectiveness on defense has declined. And how does it give a team an advantage? You don't think videotaping teams and knowing their plays, offensive/defensive tendencies and signals gives you an edge? I didn't think I had to spell it out.

I don't even care about spygate really but these justifications/claims you're making are retarded.

[jms493]

why would video tape if they know it was illegal?

[Bear Pand]

why would they video tape if they didn't believe it gave them an advantage

Fixed.

This dude lives in a world where the Patriots were just out there videotaping teams for fun and didn't use the information to attempt to gain any sort of advantage over teams. Add in the fact that he believes other teams did it as well. So apparently multiple teams were committing rule violations with no apparent benefit.

I don't understand how you can simultaneously make the argument that other teams were doing it and also that it didn't give an advantage.

[Senser81]

Now I'm not going to say that spygate is the primary reason for their decline on D. There's other factors, rule changes (5 yard contact, no longer being allowed to fake injuries on D), personnel changes and changes in overall team strategy.

Found this comment to be interestingly stupid. One, you make it seem as if the Patriots defense was completely dependent on the information received from videotaped practices. Two, the line "changes in overall team strategy" is incredibly vague, and can really only be interpreted one way: that the Patriots have proactively changed their overall team strategy to be worse on defense. Its like Belichick said "you know what? We are too good on defense. Better change the strategy so that we aren't as good." While I see the logic in this (for instance, I don't allow myself to call any "Cover 3" defenses in NCAA because they are too effective against the CPU), I doubt an NFL coach would enact this. Three, you recognize that something as trifling as "personnel changes" did indeed happen with NE, but you give it equal billing with your other make-believe factors. It would be like listing the top 10 reasons why the Browns always suck, and at the bottom of the list you have "players aren't very good".

All in all, its the typical Bear Pand posting. A slightly intelligent person trying to sound extremely intelligent, but ending up looking retarded.

[ssags11]

If regular season was so important, The Dan fouts lead Chargers and Dan Marino Miami Dolphins would be remembered as great teams, but thay arent.

Just curious, how does one get into the playoffs? Regular season perhaps? Or are those 16 games nothing more than practice games? How could something so essential to getting to the playoff be so unimportant in your mind?

this is all silly, Brady's a great player/QB no matter what. But in a way they have been like the 70s Vikings and 90s Bills. A whole bunch of grandiose hoopla for nothing but bupkiss the last 4 years.

So, I guess 2001, 2003 and 2004 just doesn't matter to you because, they haven't won since 2004.

Some of the NFL's great dynasties dominance lasted 5 to 6 years, ie Cowboys, 49ers, Steelers teams than they regressed. But somehow, the Patriots have been able to maintain whatever they have going for almost 12 years and with a complete turnover in personal. There is not a single dynasty that can make that claim. Only 2 players have rings on the Patriots, Brady and Wilfork's rookie year when he played behind Warren. They have been in 5 of the last 10 Superbowls, losing two of them to a circus catch and than a dropped pass, the have been shattering records, winning games but somehow they are nothing more than a Jim Kelly lead Bills team because they haven't won 2004.

Okay dude.

[ssags11]

Fixed.

This dude lives in a world where the Patriots were just out there videotaping teams for fun and didn't use the information to attempt to gain any sort of advantage over teams. Add in the fact that he believes other teams did it as well. So apparently multiple teams were committing rule violations with no apparent benefit.

I don't understand how you can simultaneously make the argument that other teams were doing it and also that it didn't give an advantage.

But you still can't tell me what advantage they got. You just keep saying they did. Now please tell me, what advantage did it give to the Patriots?

[jms493]

But you still can't tell me what advantage they got. You just keep saying they did. Now please tell me, what advantage did it give to the Patriots?

You will have to ask the Patriots...we never saw the tapes. You tell me, why do you THINK they were taping the sidelines?

[jms493]

But you still can't tell me what advantage they got. You just keep saying they did. Now please tell me, what advantage did it give to the Patriots?

In addition several other teams including the Steelers and Packers also accused the Patriots of signal stealing with former Steelers wide receiver Hines Ward stating that when the offense would audible to another play the New England defenders would move to the new alignment before the offensive players arrived leaving no question that they in fact already knew what play had been called in the audible. [14] The incident only served to intensify the already bitter arch-rivalry between the Jets and Patriots.

[ram29jackson]

Just curious, how does one get into the playoffs? Regular season perhaps? Or are those 16 games nothing more than practice games? How could something so essential to getting to the playoff be so unimportant in your mind?


So, I guess 2001, 2003 and 2004 just doesn't matter to you because, they haven't won since 2004.

Some of the NFL's great dynasties dominance lasted 5 to 6 years, ie Cowboys, 49ers, Steelers teams than they regressed. But somehow, the Patriots have been able to maintain whatever they have going for almost 12 years and with a complete turnover in personal. There is not a single dynasty that can make that claim. Only 2 players have rings on the Patriots, Brady and Wilfork's rookie year when he played behind Warren. They have been in 5 of the last 10 Superbowls, losing two of them to a circus catch and than a dropped pass, the have been shattering records, winning games but somehow they are nothing more than a Jim Kelly lead Bills team because they haven't won 2004.

Okay dude.

okay dude, how old are you? Do you have any critical thinking skills or comprehension skills? You are redundantly repeating what I just said.

[ssags11]

okay dude, how old are you? Do you have any critical thinking skills or comprehension skills? You are redundantly repeating what I just said.

Sorry, I might be getting you crossed with the other guy. Very distracted at the moment. I'll look back to see if I was following the right posts.

[SethMode]

I can't believe people are still trying to argue that the Pats didn't get an advantage from video taping. Or, I guess in this shmuck's case, he's arguing that we as fans can't prove that the Pats definitely got an advantage from video taping. Is this for real?

[Bear Pand]

Found this comment to be interestingly stupid. One, you make it seem as if the Patriots defense was completely dependent on the information received from videotaped practices. Two, the line "changes in overall team strategy" is incredibly vague, and can really only be interpreted one way: that the Patriots have proactively changed their overall team strategy to be worse on defense. Its like Belichick said "you know what? We are too good on defense. Better change the strategy so that we aren't as good." While I see the logic in this (for instance, I don't allow myself to call any "Cover 3" defenses in NCAA because they are too effective against the CPU), I doubt an NFL coach would enact this. Three, you recognize that something as trifling as "personnel changes" did indeed happen with NE, but you give it equal billing with your other make-believe factors. It would be like listing the top 10 reasons why the Browns always suck, and at the bottom of the list you have "players aren't very good".

All in all, its the typical Bear Pand posting. A slightly intelligent person trying to sound extremely intelligent, but ending up looking retarded.

And all in all this is typical Senser81 posting. Waste of time strawman arguments and bizarre interpretations of what was said. This is why I usually ignore your posts.

1) I don't know how you can accuse me of making it seem like the Pat's D was completely dependent on videotaping when I said:

Now I'm not going to say that spygate is the primary reason for their decline on D.

So I go out of my way to say that it's not a primary reason, you ignore this and accuse me of doing it anyway. Oh ok.

2) LOL at this "can really only be interpreted one way: that the Patriots have proactively changed their overall team strategy to be worse on defense." No just no. First of all while what I said was vague this is clearly an extreme way of interpreting it. You accuse me of making an argument that Belichick deliberately made the defense worse (I didn't, I only said their strategy as a team changed), then decide to tear down this argument. It's easy to make someone look "retarded" when you rely on strawman bullshit like this. Who exactly are you debating when you tell us it's dumb to believe Belichick basically sabotaged the Pat's D? Are we supposed to be enlightened when you point out how this is obviously untrue?

3) The other factors I mentioned aren't make believe. The only other factor I mentioned was rule changes which did negatively impact the Pat's ability to play D. You had Polian arguing for more emphasis on the 5 yard contact rule cause he was tired of the Pats constantly breaking it. The injury faking is not on equal par with their players changing but it's another borderline tactic they <3ed to do.