This is the last thing the Giants needed!

[jdcord]

Apparently, Arlen Specter, the Boston Herald, and Kurt Warner all want to see the Patriots put a major whoopin' on the New York Giants.  How else to explain the latest rounds of Patriots bashing by resurrecting the so-called "SpyGate scandal", and hurling ridiculous, "sore loser" accusations about the Patriots' previous Super Bowl victories? 

Back in early September, the initial round of such ridiculous, and insulting, accusations kicked off two months of anger-inspired annihilations of any teams unfortunate enough to face the Patriots.  Coming, as it does, just hours before the Super Bowl, and just hours before the Patriots try to cap off a historic 19-0 perfect season, This newest round of dictionary definition "sore-loser whining" is sure to stir up an even angrier hornets nest of Patriots.  And God help the team that has to go out there and face them, in what will NOW, in all likelihood, be yet another (perhaps even greater!) fury-inspired annihilation by the Patriots:  an event where ideas such as "mercy", or of sitting your starters once things get "out of hand", are given about as much consideration as watching reruns of "Doogie Howser".


As for the ridiculous accusations, ....

It is claimed that the Patriots video taped the Rams' final "walk-through" practice prior to the 2002 Super Bowl, wherein the Rams offense went over their "Red Zone" formations and plays, and that this somehow helped the Patriots defeat the Rams (by supposedly helping them stifle the Rams' red zone offense).

The most glaring problem with that line of thought is that the Rams hardly even sniffed the Red Zone during the first 50 minutes of the game.  ..... and when they did finally get there in the last 10 minutes, they scored two touchdowns!  ESPN's web site went so far as to try and associate Ty Law's first half interception (and return for a touchdown) with this alleged "red zone" advantage.  But that interception not only did not take place in the "red zone", it took place on the Rams' side of the field!

How about the following as far more sensible, rational, and obvious reasons for the Patriots' victory over the "Greatest Show on Turf" (a victory that I, btw, predicted, for some of the very reasons listed below): 

1)  They had the better defense, ..... by leaps and bounds.  It included two Cornerbacks (Ty Law and Otis Smith) who could have been the #1 corner on practically any team in the league, and a "nickel" back (Terrell Buckley) who would have been a starter on any other team in the league.  Before the AFC Championship game against Pittsburgh, I told a friend of mine at work (also a Patriots fan) that the Patriots would beat the Steelers for three reasons - Ty Law, Otis Smith, and Terrell Buckley, who would allow the Pats to play man coverage while putting "eight in the box" to stuff the Steelers' running game, thereby forcing Kordell Stewart to try and beat them through the air, which wasn't gonna happen.  For those same three "reasons", I figured that the Safeties and Linebackers of the Patriots would be freed up to harass and beat up Marshall Faulk for pretty much the entire game, .... which they did, along with making Kurt Warner very jumpy (which he was).

2)  They had an offense that didn't commit turnovers, and a QB that had thrown for 300 yards, downfield and on a line, in what amounted to a 20 to 30 MPH, wind-swept, white out of a blizzard just 2 weeks prior (an effort that goes overlooked due to perhaps the greatest field goal kick in NFL history, right into the teeth of that same wind-swept blizzard, ... and, of course, the famous - and correctly called I might add - "Tuck Rule" play).

3)  They had a far more experienced and superior coaching staff, especially so at the Head Coach position.


Add to that the fact that the Patriots had played the Rams very close early in the regular season, at a time when Brady was still "cutting his teeth" as an NFL QB in one of his first starts, and it's a wonder that the Patriots weren't actually favored in that Super Bowl!  And now Kurt Warner and others want to claim that the Patriots won that game by cheating??  That's ludicrous!

..... It's also the perfect stick for stirring up a hornets nest that the Giants would have preferred be left "unstirred".


   

[jdcord]

The hornets apparently weren't home when their nest was stirred, because their intensity level throughout the game was seemingly in "vacation mode".  I have no idea what that was all about, ...... unless all the newest "Spygate" stuff actually affected them adversely, focus-wise, that is - as opposed to the normal, galvanizing effect that such insults and off-field distractions have historically had on the Patriots.


Very strange, indeed.  ...................... In fact, I propose that the Giants must have cheated somehow, and that the NFL needs to immediately look into the matter!!

[bishopnl]

Jd,

I'm always amazed at the constant lengths you will go to defend the Patriots and their classless, cheating ways, and now, it appears, to excuse their loss in the Super Bowl.

If it helps, Tom Brady is a great quarterback.  He's certaintly one of the two best quarterbacks in the NFL, although I wouldn't anoint him over Peyton Manning yet.

Bill Belicheck is a great coach.  He's certaintly one of, if not the, best coach in the NFL today.

However, for years you've asserted that the Patriots get their wins the right way.  You've praised the Patriots for their class and integrity, for the fact that they didn't bring in troublemakers and were some great, ethical beacon of light in the dark world that is the NFL.

These are the facts.  It's true that many teams cheat.  Cheating is a part of sports.  And the Patriots earlier transgression of stealing signals from the sidelines was probably not done just by them.  Even if it is against the rules, and even if the Patriots are supposed to be the shining beacon set upon a hill to show the rest of professional sports the way to run a professional team in an ethical, honest, and upright manner, it still is true that other teams have done similar behavior in the past.

However, if, it is in fact true that the Patriots videotaped the Rams walkthrough in the Super Bowl in 2002, then that is a much more serious offence.  And only a died in the wool, willing-to-ignore-the-facts Patriots fan would ever deny that.  Knowing a teams strategy, even if only partially, before heading into a game, gives that team a HUGE advantage. 

ESPN Story

The above story from ESPN is a good expose on how the NFL and the Patriots have not been forthcoming about all the issues surrounding the Patriots illegal videotaping.  It also states that the Rams were working on new plays not seen during the regular season during that walk through.  Further, the original story was broken by the Boston Herald...so it's not as if it's just a bunch of New England haters who want to dog the Patriots, as your initial post seems to suggest.

So write off ESPN if you want.  The fact is that your boys are just a bunch of classless lowlifes, and if these allegations prove to be true, they should forfeit their Super Bowl from 2002.   

Further, the idea that their intensity level was low and they might have been distracted due to all the allegations seems to me a far fetched idea designed to excuse the Patriots loss at the hands of the Giants.  Their intensity level in no way seemed low to me.  The fact is, New York's offense did a good job keeping the ball out of Brady's hands, and when he did get it, he didn't have time to make those deep throws downfield to Randy Moss because the New York D was constantly in his face.  In short, the Giants had the right game plan and the right personnel to beat the Patriots.  The Patriots simply weren't good enough to cap off their undefeated season.

And if allegations didn't "add fuel" to the fire...could it be because Brady and Co. know that the allegations are true? 

I hate the Patriots with the kind of fervent hatred reserved for the Yankees, Red Sox, and Cubs.  I hate Tom Brady as much as I ever hated Alex Rodriguez, or Manny Ramirez, or Sammy Sosa.  Every time I see Bill Belicheck and his sloppy, nappy get up out there on the field, his smug little smirks and his arrogance, I just want somebody to come along and body slam him.  And seeing the Giants win with 35 seconds left on the clock, sending a dagger through the heart of the Patriots undefeated season, gave me a feeling almost as satisfying as buying a new house, or having a first child.   ok, not really, but it was pretty satisfying.

And then the big cherry on top is to learn that now even the Patriots past Super Bowls are going to be tainted with the allegation of scandals...the only people denying this are the fans who can't get over the fact that the Patriots aren't a great dynasty, they aren't "the greatest team ever"...they aren't even the Super Bowl Champions!   They are just an 18-1 team who didn't quite have the stamina to finish the job. 

[jdcord]

I notice that you didn't attempt to address even one of the three valid points that I made.  ... (and I have a few more, but I'm holding them back for later use.    *grin*)

So then, ..... your admittedly hate-filled, histrionic rantings aside, .... shall I assume that you are conceding so quickly?  ........ how disappointing.   


:grin:

[bishopnl]

Jd,

The three points you raise earlier may have validity...but I'll point out two things.

1.  The ESPN article states:  "The Rams kept getting bogged down, as if New England knew what plays were coming."  And anyone who saw that game would agree that this was the case...especially considering that the Rams had previous Super Bowl experience and the greatest offense in the history of the league.  So even if the Patriots had the better coaching staff (which I'll definitely concede), a better defense, and a competent (although nowhere near as comparable offense), that doesn't wipe away the fact that in light of the allegations, the Patriots defensive game plan was remarkably effective in shutting down the greatest offenses ever at that point.  Obviously, judging by the outcome of this Super Bowl, such a defensive performance is not unheard of...but again, in light of the allegations, it certaintly looks suspicious.

2.  Suppose, for a minute, that the taping of the walkthrough didn't change the outcome of the game.  So what?  What the Patriots did was not only unethical, and cheating which stretched beyond what is normally considered "acceptable" by football standards, it's also breaking league rules.  It was a big enough deal that their hometown paper broke the story.  Should such cheating be excused, overlooked, and go unpunished?  Nothing short of a severe penalty, either forfeiture of the Super Bowl, or else taking away their draft picks for the next 2 or 3 years, is going to teach teams that such excessive and immoral behavior simply will not be tolerated by the league.  And I've got a good feeling you would agree if it was any team but the Patriots, which you've been fawning over for years and would excuse if they were coached by the devil himself.

The fact is, you can bring out all the "points" you want to.  If there is evidence that the Patriots taped the walk through, it's cheating, and not just the kind of "acceptable" cheating that many football teams engage in.  The fact that this has been kept so hush-hush by the Patriots and the NFL is certaintly suspicious.  I never want to hear again what a great, ethical, moral, upstanding team the Patriots are.  They are the Raiders East....run by a quarterback who has no personal morality, a receiver who has constantly been in trouble with the law since his high school career, a coach who is arrogant, flaunts the rules, and engages in unethical behavior to get the job done, and an owner who doesn't care about any of it as long as his team wins. 

[jdcord]

1.  The ESPN article states:  "The Rams kept getting bogged down, as if New England knew what plays were coming."

That would be the same ESPN article that claims that Ty Law's interception (returned for a TD) was proof of how the Patriots seemed to know what plays the Rams were going to run in the red zone, even though both the play and the interception actually took place on the Rams side of the field!!  I have a hard time believing that the person who wrote that article ever actually watched that game!  I am amazed that ESPN even ran that article.  Don't they have editors any more??  Or did none of them watch the game either?  The writer's comment about Law's interception is proof that they have no clue what went on during that game, so that article is probably the last thing you want to be citing as a means of trying to "back up" your case.

2.  .... It was a big enough deal that their hometown paper broke the story. 

And who owns that paper?       



BTW, ........ what gives a team a greater advantage during a game, or during the course of an entire season: 

1)  Taping sideline signals that in all truth can't do you any good until you've had some decent time to review and decipher them - which means doing so after the game in question, and by then teams can and do change such signals;  making such tapes of some value, certainly, but nowhere near the value they're being played up as in the media (and by Patriots-hating fans, .... *cough*)?

...... or,

2)  Having a key player (such as an edge-rushing, outside linebacker, for instance) get all doped up on "the juice" and playing like a revved-up, super-powered, never tiring, enraged, speed demon on a mission, for pretty much the entire season?  Or, since we're there now, how about having TWO such players?  Or three?  Or even ten, for that matter?? 

Both the Carolina Panthers and the San Diego Chargers - to name just two such teams, of which there are many more - have clear cut cases of key defensive players who were obviously on "the juice" in previous seasons, and whose play has suddenly and dramatically plummeted now that they are under much higher scrutiny and had to stop taking those drugs.  Yet I don't hear anyone screaming for any of those teams' draft picks to be taken from them for the obvious and much greater advantage that such "cheating" gave their teams, much less calling for the wins or titles their teams accrued during those "cheating years" to be stripped from them.

I wonder why??  .................... oh WAIT!  ........  I know why.  It's because this really has nothing to do with truly caring or trying to do away with actual "cheating" in the NFL, per se.  Instead, this is all about nothing less than hating the Patriots, just because they have been clearly, and consistently, and demonstratively better than everyone else during this decade.

How truly sad such completely faked and contrived "indignation" is.  But I guess since teams haven't been able to figure out a way to beat the Patriots on the field (not even by cheating with "juiced up" players), they've finally resorted to crying for mommy and daddy to somehow "handcuff" the Patriots in order to supposedly make things more "fair".   .......... Truly sad, indeed.

[bishopnl]

Again, I'm consistently amazed at the lengths you'll go to defend the Patriots.  Now it's to point fingers at other teams and gripe that their players are taking steroids, as if that somehow excuses what the Patriots have been doing for the last 8 years.

One of these days, you're going to have to come to grips with the fact that your boys are a bunch of classless lowlifes breaking NFL rules since 2000.  They cheated, that was a factor in all their Super Bowl wins, and history should remember them not as dynamic powerhouse but as a group not afraid to break rules and engage in unethical conduct to win.  I hope this is a cloud that hangs over them for football eternity.

[jdcord]

I see that you didn't answer the question of which action gives a team a greater advantage.  Your silence is deafening, and also reveals what you know to be the inescapable answer.

The true "bunch of classless lowlifes" are not those who break the league rules, but those who now only break the league rules, but also break the law while they're at it! 

Those franchises that "look the other way" while their players juice up on steroids - or even worse, those franchises that aid and abet their players in doing so - they are the real "classless lowlifes". 

Such "classless lowlifes" would include (but are in no way limited to) such franchises as:  the Steelers, the Cowboys, the Giants, the Chargers, the Panthers, the 49ers, the Raiders - and yes, even your Rams and my Redskins.

Until there is a higher level of indignation about the rampant "cheating" within the league, via the illegal and unethical use of steroids within practically every franchise,  then the indignation currently being aimed (by some) at the Patriots is nothing but wholly contrived and hypocritical, and obviously brought about by sheer jealously and the frustration that accompanies it.

[bishopnl]

I didn't go into a lengthy reply b/c it doesn't seem to matter with you.  First, the Patriots were only doing what everyone else did, then their cheating really didn't help them, then it was that other teams are doing worse stuff.  There's always a reason why the Patriots shouldn't be punished.

But if you want the short answer as to whether it's more advantageous for a team to know, ahead of time, what plays it's opponent is likely to run, or having a player on steroids, any team in the NFL will ask for the plays in advance. 

And no one is excusing other teams cheating.  But when your defense is to point at other teams and what they do, it says a great deal about the defenseless position the Patriots find themselves in.  The proper response would be, "The Patriots cheated, and deserve to be severely punished under league rules."