Shula: Give Pats asterisk if they go 16-0

[buck]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Who is to say that Bonds, who was a pretty good ballplayer to begin with, would not have hit all those home runs without steroids?

Look at his numbers throughout the normal "prime" years for a baseball player. Then look afterwards, when they should have declined not increased. Personally think he used HGH and other hormone treatments, as I would imagine most modern day athletes prefer.

You place too much emphasis on the Pats offense, it is common practice.

You make the call.....

Still don't think he used steroids, he could afford the better, healthier alternatives. The physical advantage it gave him in direct competition is far more troubling than some insight gleaned off intel.

Are these alternatives approved by mlb?

 

[SSSnail]

For the record, they were fined a combined of $750,000.00 Pesos... I mean USD. They lost the first round draft pick.

They moved on. You should as well.

I swear, there's no hell like a woman's scorn.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: MotionMan

I believe Bonds did use steroids. I was just pointing out that it has not been proven, yet he has already been slapped with an *.

The Pats were actually caught cheating, yet, "since everyone does it" (like steroids, BTW) or "it is not that big of a deal", everyone is ready to let them off the hook.

Another great argument I am seeing is that the Pats would have won without cheating since they are so good, so the cheating should be overlooked. Who is to say that Bonds, who was a pretty good ballplayer to begin with, would not have hit all those home runs without steroids?

I do not condone cheating, it just seems like there is a double-standard as between Bonds and the Pats.

(BTW, so far, in this thread I have been called stupid and an idiot. I do not think that is necessary. Please make your arguments and keep it civil.)

MotionMan

Actually I only said "if you believed he didn't use roids, you were an idiot". However, you do, thus I don't think you are an idiot.
My point is that the Pats were continuing something most (if not all) NFL teams admittedly did the year before. A tactic much like watching old footage of teams. This is a far cry from using steroids, and really no one can help you if you dont understand the difference between the two.
I can't tell if you are trolling, bitter at the pats, or just confused as to what they really did.

If you can honestly tell us what advantage it would have given the Patriots this regular season, I will give you a cookie. The fact is that they do this for future seasons (or even playoffs) for info on the opponents. Much like watching old footage of teams. Do you not understand that most (if not all) teams did this very same thing last year? Were they all cheating?

I am not trolling. I am just trying to understand why people get so hot and heavy about Bonds and are so blase about the Pats (even in this thread). I am gathering that, since the Pats only cheated a little bit and it did not give them that much of an advantage, since everyone else cheated the same way, too, they get the free pass.

So, setting aside the obvious advantage steroids can give a player, if everyone in baseball used steroids, Bonds would be off the hook to some extent?

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Who is to say that Bonds, who was a pretty good ballplayer to begin with, would not have hit all those home runs without steroids?

Look at his numbers throughout the normal "prime" years for a baseball player. Then look afterwards, when they should have declined not increased. Personally think he used HGH and other hormone treatments, as I would imagine most modern day athletes prefer.

You place too much emphasis on the Pats offense, it is common practice.

I am not emphasizing anything.

Clearly, it is unlikely that Bonds would have hit all those HRs without steroids, but there is no way to prove it.

The Pats provably cheated.

Why do the Pats get a free pass?

MotionMan

But that's the thing, they were PUNISHED according to the league. It's over, let it go. They kick ass, come to terms with that.

So if Bonds was punished, say $1,000,000, and he promised not to use steroids anymore, everyone would let it go? I think not.

MotionMan

 

[SSSnail]

MotionMan*

I haven't been arguing with you, but let's compare apples to apples yeah?

Bond + whatever supplement he used = Directly proportional to hitting power (I think that's like +1400 ATK PWR, which is T5 gears). Now, that's unfair advantage.

Patriots + taping for review = Not unfair advantage. Other teams (shall I say they ALL) tape their opponents. That's not an UNFAIR advantage, very simple concept.

What's unfair is Brady + Moss + Welker + Stallworth + D + an awesome O line; now, figure out a way to deal with THAT unfair advantage.

Edit:

Case in point, last Sunday's game. They adjusted to stop Addai in the second half and overcoming a 10 points deficit in the second half. If that's not unfair advantage, I don't know what is, just too bad that you can't fine them for it .

 

[buck]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Who is to say that Bonds, who was a pretty good ballplayer to begin with, would not have hit all those home runs without steroids?

Look at his numbers throughout the normal "prime" years for a baseball player. Then look afterwards, when they should have declined not increased. Personally think he used HGH and other hormone treatments, as I would imagine most modern day athletes prefer.

You place too much emphasis on the Pats offense, it is common practice.

I am not emphasizing anything.

Clearly, it is unlikely that Bonds would have hit all those HRs without steroids, but there is no way to prove it.

The Pats provably cheated.

Why do the Pats get a free pass?

MotionMan

But that's the thing, they were PUNISHED according to the league. It's over, let it go. They kick ass, come to terms with that.

So if Bonds was punished, say $1,000,000, and he promised not to use steroids anymore, everyone would let it go? I think not.

MotionMan

That doesnt make sense at all. In fact, can we let the Bonds bit go and get back to the topic? There is another thread if you want to argue about him.


As far as the "cheating a little bit" goes... As a NFL fan, I see it as a rule violation not cheating. Thats my standpoint because it has been used for such a long time by many if not most teams.

 

[buck]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
MotionMan*

I haven't been arguing with you, but let's compare apples to apples yeah?

Bond + whatever supplement he used = Directly proportional to hitting power (I think that's like +1400 ATK PWR, which is T5 gears). Now, that's unfair advantage.

Patriots + taping for review = Not unfair advantage. Other teams (shall I say they ALL) tape their opponents. That's not an UNFAIR advantage, very simple concept.

What's unfair is Brady + Moss + Welker + Stallworth + D + an awesome O line; now, figure out a way to deal with THAT unfair advantage.

Edit:

Case in point, last Sunday's game. They adjusted to stop Addai in the second half and overcoming a 10 points deficit in the second half. If that's not unfair advantage, I don't know what is, just too bad that you can't fine them for it .

LMAO

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
MotionMan*

That's M*ti*nM*n to you.



MotionMan

 

[Pepsei]

giving a little advantage... seems like cheating to me. now, let's not get bend out of shape over that word. they need to relax the rule and make it okay to tape other teams' signals. and let's move on.

as for bonds... let's move on too, he did hit those balls himself. regardless of what natural or unnatural advantage he used. i don't think i'd be able to hit shit if i pump myself full of juice.

 

[Phokus]

This article has a good timeline on spygate and why it doesn't taint this season:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/ne...07&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Summary: The cameraman was caught in the 1st quarter of the 1st half of the 1st game. They didn't even have a chance to review the film and thus gained no competitive advantage. Plus, all teams change defensive signals week to week. Any signals that BB had in his library from the previous seasons would have been useless.

Funny thing is, the Dolphins lost a 1st round pick for tampering in relation to hiring Don Shula, so any success the Dolphins have under Shula has an asterisk. I guess 'ol don is suffering from dementia or something.

 

[Deeko]

I haven't read any of the responses in the thread......

I don't think the Patriots deserve an asterisk. They've assembled the most dominant team we've seen in the past 10 years easily...maybe even ever (note, I don't think they're the best team ever, but maybe most dominant compared to the rest of the league, which seems to suck outside of 3-4 teams this season.).

However, the Patriots and the fans deserve all the crap they're getting this year. Fact is, their team got caught doing something wrong and paid the price for it, so just bend over and take all the Pats* and Cheatriots comments, you deserve them, but meanwhile just enjoy the ride.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Look.. I don't agree with Shula even though I hate the Patriots and am totally rooting against them going 16-0. But here's the thing.. people are minimizing the whole Spy Gate scandal and are trying to make it out to be the smallest infraction imaginable.

It doesn't matter if other teams do it too (they weren't caught), it doesn't matter if they caught the guy before he could even pass along the video tape to the coaches (the intent is still there), it doesn't matter how little effect YOU think it might have had on the outcome of the game/games in which they were used (just like you don't know how they would use these signals to gain a competitive edge), and lasty, it doesn't matter what they filmed or how they filmed it (what they did was against the rules, rules that were reiterated at the beginning of the season in fact. Why? Because the Patriots were seen doing this same exact thing against the Packers the year before).

So there you go.. they cheated, plain and simple, and this fact is backed up by the fact that they were punished financially and competitively by the league. If you want to argue the severity of the cheating procedures that's another issue for another day, I just want to make sure people know they intended to steal signals and intended to gain a competitive edge using those signals. Whether it was a small, medium, or minuscule edge is of no consequence because the intent is still there. Just keep drilling that into fact into your heads, intent, intent, intent! They intended to cheat and were caught. Anyone who tries to minimize this fact is being ridiculous or has just not thought it through yet. It doesn't matter if other teams do things to cheat until they are caught as well, because unless that happens it's just baseless accusation. This team was caught red-handed, this team has to pay the price.

Allllll that being said, they shouldn't be "asterisked" if they go undefeated. It's the record of a team, not the record of those who come up the game plan. So unless the team was fully complicit in this cause (which I don't think they all were) they shouldn't be "punished" by the adding of a footnote. Yes they broke the rules, yes they tried to gain an illegal competitive edge, but the game is still played on the field and that's where the Patriots are getting it done. I do think they should have been punished harder (Goodell is a fucking hypocritical coward) but that's a different story too, an asterisk is not the proper punishment for this infraction unless the cheating was a team-wide thing, which I will state again I don't think is true.

 

[Onita]

But that's the thing, they were PUNISHED according to the league. It's over, let it go. They kick ass, come to terms with that.[/quote]

So if Bonds was punished, say $1,000,000, and he promised not to use steroids anymore, everyone would let it go? I think not.

MotionMan[/quote]

That doesnt make sense at all. In fact, can we let the Bonds bit go and get back to the topic? There is another thread if you want to argue about him.


As far as the "cheating a little bit" goes... As a NFL fan, I see it as a rule violation not cheating. Thats my standpoint because it has been used for such a long time by many if not most teams.[/quote]





It makes perfect sense for that argument. You want to let NE off the hook because they were punished by the league, for being CAUGHT cheating. Bonds hasn't been caught (sure, it's hard/impossible to argue that he didn't take steroids). Personally, I don't care either way about asterisks. And as you can see by all the reports coming out, and the rest that will come out by the end of the year, steroid use was widespread in baseball.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: rpkelly
As far as the "cheating a little bit" goes... As a NFL fan, I see it as a rule violation not cheating. Thats my standpoint because it has been used for such a long time by many if not most teams.

Prove it! What teams were caught doing this?? What coaches from other teams have admitted to doing this??? Let me help you out, the Patriots were caught TWICE, the other NFL teams were caught NONCE (plural of none?). You're casting dispersions on teams for doing things you don't know they actually did and trying to use that unsubstantiated evidence to prove your own view, which is ridiculous. Please get a clue before you give an opinion.

 

[Phokus]

The point is, Shula comparing spygate to Bonds is idiotic. As soon as Bonds injected steroids into himself, every game he played afterward is affected. The camera man was caught in the 1st quarter of the game. They didn't even have a chance to review the tape at half time. The league said that the Pats didn't gain a competitive advantage for that game which is true. We're talking about THIS SEASON ONLY btw. I'm not going to go into the clusterf*ck argument about the past seasons.

And besides that, the dolphins were sanctioned a 1st round pick for tampering when hiring Shula, so every Dolphin game that was won with shula has an asterisk. It's hypocritical.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: rpkelly
As far as the "cheating a little bit" goes... As a NFL fan, I see it as a rule violation not cheating. Thats my standpoint because it has been used for such a long time by many if not most teams.

Prove it! What teams were caught doing this?? What coaches from other teams have admitted to doing this??? Let me help you out, the Patriots were caught TWICE, the other NFL teams were caught NONCE (plural of none?). You're casting dispersions on teams for doing things you don't know they actually did and trying to use that unsubstantiated evidence to prove your own view, which is ridiculous. Please get a clue before you give an opinion.

Jimmy Johnson admitted to doing it IN KC/Dallas/Miami on Fox Sunday NFL. Stop posting.

 

[Deeko]

Actually, I recall him saying he did it in college, but didn't find it useful so he didn't do it in the NFL. Also, it wasn't illegal back then. Next case.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: rpkelly
As far as the "cheating a little bit" goes... As a NFL fan, I see it as a rule violation not cheating. Thats my standpoint because it has been used for such a long time by many if not most teams.

Prove it! What teams were caught doing this?? What coaches from other teams have admitted to doing this??? Let me help you out, the Patriots were caught TWICE, the other NFL teams were caught NONCE (plural of none?). You're casting dispersions on teams for doing things you don't know they actually did and trying to use that unsubstantiated evidence to prove your own view, which is ridiculous. Please get a clue before you give an opinion.

Jimmy Johnson admitted to doing it IN KC/Dallas/Miami on Fox Sunday NFL. Stop posting.

And I suppose that makes it right? Wait a second, you're from Connecticut, I don't need your biased New England opinion. Stop living.

"And besides that, the dolphins were sanctioned a 1st round pick for tampering when hiring Shula, so every Dolphin game that was won with shula has an asterisk. It's hypocritical."

That's such a joke of a comparison you should be ashamed for even suggesting it in a comical fashion. Comparing the Patriots to Bonds is less ludicrous.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Deeko
Actually, I recall him saying he did it in college, but didn't find it useful so he didn't do it in the NFL. Also, it wasn't illegal back then. Next case.

Of course what you posted was a complete lie. He said he didn't find it useful, that's true, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it in the NFL. He learned it with the Chiefs, you idiot.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yo...viewtopic.php?t=273719

And prove it wasn't illegal back then. Considering your history of lying and twisting facts, you're the least trustworthy person on this topic.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: rpkelly
As far as the "cheating a little bit" goes... As a NFL fan, I see it as a rule violation not cheating. Thats my standpoint because it has been used for such a long time by many if not most teams.

Prove it! What teams were caught doing this?? What coaches from other teams have admitted to doing this??? Let me help you out, the Patriots were caught TWICE, the other NFL teams were caught NONCE (plural of none?). You're casting dispersions on teams for doing things you don't know they actually did and trying to use that unsubstantiated evidence to prove your own view, which is ridiculous. Please get a clue before you give an opinion.

Jimmy Johnson admitted to doing it IN KC/Dallas/Miami on Fox Sunday NFL. Stop posting.

And I suppose that makes it right? Wait a second, you're from Connecticut, I don't need your biased New England opinion. Stop living.

"And besides that, the dolphins were sanctioned a 1st round pick for tampering when hiring Shula, so every Dolphin game that was won with shula has an asterisk. It's hypocritical."

That's such a joke of a comparison you should be ashamed for even suggesting it in a comical fashion. Comparing the Patriots to Bonds is less ludicrous.

You implied no other coaches admitted to doing this. Stop breathing.

edit: Oh you're from philly, that would explain everything.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: rpkelly
As far as the "cheating a little bit" goes... As a NFL fan, I see it as a rule violation not cheating. Thats my standpoint because it has been used for such a long time by many if not most teams.

Prove it! What teams were caught doing this?? What coaches from other teams have admitted to doing this??? Let me help you out, the Patriots were caught TWICE, the other NFL teams were caught NONCE (plural of none?). You're casting dispersions on teams for doing things you don't know they actually did and trying to use that unsubstantiated evidence to prove your own view, which is ridiculous. Please get a clue before you give an opinion.

Jimmy Johnson admitted to doing it IN KC/Dallas/Miami on Fox Sunday NFL. Stop posting.

And I suppose that makes it right? Wait a second, you're from Connecticut, I don't need your biased New England opinion. Stop living.

"And besides that, the dolphins were sanctioned a 1st round pick for tampering when hiring Shula, so every Dolphin game that was won with shula has an asterisk. It's hypocritical."

That's such a joke of a comparison you should be ashamed for even suggesting it in a comical fashion. Comparing the Patriots to Bonds is less ludicrous.

No, comparing Bonds to the Patriots is equally as stupid. When Bonds makes contact with a ball and sends it to deep center field, his increased strength makes it more likely that fly balls become homer runs. Stronger muscles means increased bat speed which not only affects the distance he can drive the ball, but the time he has to 'judge' a pitch. Hence, Bonds' admittance of steroid use directly impacts his ability to play the game. Plus, the impact of one player on a baseball game can be far more than the impact of one player on a football game.

The better Bonds' analogy is a guy like Sean Merriman. Merriman was a playmaker last season. Some of his interceptions, sacks, and fumble recoveries directly impacted the outcome of a game. If his admitted steroid use made it possible to complete ANY of those plays, then he's done the exact same thing as Bonds - gained an unfair advantage over the competition and directly affected the outcome of a football game.

The reason we don't hear about steroids is because they are a much harder problem to solve. When a team breaks the rules, you can punish them. You can dance around and 'show' everyone how you're tough on cheaters, but the reality is you aren't tough at all. You let guys who are rampantly abusing steroids awe crowds every single week. You let guys juicing like crazy affect the outcome of games.

Let's a take a better analogy to what the Patriots did. In baseball stealing signs is legal, just like in football. Players frequently try to take big leads off 2nd base in order to read the sign the catcher lays down and then relay it to the batter. Punishment for this 'offense' is usually getting drilled by the pitcher at your next AB.

A few teams have been accused of using video cameras to steal pitching, running, and hitting signs. None of these accusations have panned out, but let's say they did. Now a team can watch the opposition's signs with regularity. The hitting signs are nearly impossible to use because the catcher doesn't lay down the sign until after the batter has received any instructions from the dugout. If he tried to glance and receive a last-minute sign, there's no way he could actually make contact with the ball. The running signs are far too complex to decipher in a meaningful way. They usually change every inning or every other inning. That's why you see them. Nobody cares if the other team watches, because they aren't about to figure out the code. Same for running signs.

How does this relate to football? Well, what the Patriots were punished for amounts to the same thing. They 'stole' signs via videotape rather than via an individual watching the defensive coordinator. Any advantage conferred couldn't have been very great because, let's be honest, teams aren't stupid. Defensive signals change frequently, just like in baseball. No team keeps the same signals and, if they did, video or scouts would report it. Basically, the Patriots were justly punished for breaking the rules. To think those rules violations change anything about 2001, 2003, 2004, or 2007 is really pushing it.

 

[buck]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: rpkelly
As far as the "cheating a little bit" goes... As a NFL fan, I see it as a rule violation not cheating. Thats my standpoint because it has been used for such a long time by many if not most teams.

Prove it! What teams were caught doing this?? What coaches from other teams have admitted to doing this??? Let me help you out, the Patriots were caught TWICE, the other NFL teams were caught NONCE (plural of none?). You're casting dispersions on teams for doing things you don't know they actually did and trying to use that unsubstantiated evidence to prove your own view, which is ridiculous. Please get a clue before you give an opinion.

Why are you trolling? I was actually going to discuss some of what you wrote but its clear that you have no clue as to what you are talking about. If you want to be more civil I will respond.

 

[Kev]

As good as the Pats are, the odds are still stacked against them to go undefeated, with how ridiculous this league is. I highly doubt they will go undefeated, but if they do, they should not have an asterik.

 

[m1ldslide1]

I think it's apparent why the Pats are running up the score on other teams - it's because they're pissed at the hypocrisy. Why in hell do you think that every coordinator in the league cover up their mouths when calling plays, and have been doing so for years?

Screw the asterisk people. I'm primarily a seahawks fan, and I think that everybody decrying the Pats for their videotaping are merely sore losers.

 

[Deeko]

Phokus:
http://www.wfan.com/topic/play...pisode&audioId=1036042

Straight from Jimmy Johnson - about 3/4 through it, he says Bellichek was wrong to do it AFTER the league ruled against it. I posted on another forum asking for an article specifically citing when the rule change happened - I don't feel like scouring Google, so I'll post it when I get it. He also said he heard about it 18 years ago - which would be 1989, which really could be either Miami or his first year with the Cowboys. I remember reading somewhere that it was w/ Miami, but I don't remember exactly, which is why I said "I recall him saying he did it in college, but didn't find it useful so he didn't do it in the NFL". He did say they didn't find it very useful, so they only did it a few times.

Amusing that you accuse me of lying and twisting the truth, when you have never said anything unbiased, logical, or useful. You don't even say things to spark debate, you say things as a troll to piss people off. You're a pathetic excuse for a football fan, and perfectly fitting of the stereotype people hate about Boston sports fans. Good work.