Yeah i spose there was no chance of a brady run offense being able to adapt at the line of scrimmage due to the coverage he sees. Its not like that is one of the things that brady is best known for or anything.

I appreciate having possibly the best coach/qb combo ever, i however dont appreciate people trying to diminish their accomplishments with hear'say rather than actual facts.

This thread is a perfect barometer to out the scumbags in this forum. If you are arguing:

-That spygate was comparable to or worse than the bounty program
-That the bounty program wasn't a big deal
-That the penalties were too harsh

You are, without exception, a scumbag.

I was referring to your owner being one of the guys running the cartel and that there are rules named after your qb.

and it's not hearsay

Why did you link to an article full of hearsay with the title "it's not hearsay".

you mean the Eagles players who lost the SB jumped on a readily available excuse? Shocking. I guess it was dumb of Bellichick to tell all the Eagles players his ruthlessly efficient (and legal at the time) signal-deciphering scheme while he was doing it.

People can pleet about "spygate" all they want, if it makes you feel better about your team's shortcomings then good for you honestly. But Pats fans will never consider it anything more than what it was, a media-driven heavy-handed penalty for a filming location violation that in no way tarnishes or diminishes our glorious and delicious DYNASTY.

some of the guys who played in the game are saying the playcalling was "interesting." is that hearsay? we know they did it before the rams super bowl, why would they stop?

edit: I don't think it's in the same ballpark as what the saints did. I'm just fairly sure the pats cheated and the punishment was horse****.

The NFL arent being sued by hundreds of former players for being secretly filmed during practice though

"cartel" LOL

Makes no sense. The rule is that a qb cant be tackled at his feet. Doesnt really give them that big of an advantage.

Maybe your talking about the way the pats are a passing team and they brought in rules to make it so you cant really rough up wr's anymore. The thing about that is it was brought in by the colts gm on the competition committee after the pats physical D kept shutting down the colts in the playoffs.

Linking an article where players say their blitz's didnt work is hear'say in my books. I read a bit of the article until they said how the pats used short passes to stop the blitz's or something like that. The biggest criticism of the pats Offense is that they are a dink and dunk offense hitting many short passes instead of 1 big one.

Still suprised you think they would have the ability to dechipher the signs and have a good enough understanding of them to make the needed adjustments over like 20 secs.

Next thing you will be talking about filming practices.

we know they did what before the Rams superbowl?

interesting playcalling huh, man I remember when Bellichick used to do that pre-spygate

HAHAHA i just made the comment that you would prob bring this up in my last post before i seen this one.

The fact that ur pointing to the rams thing shows u have no idea of what actually happened in spygate and are just going by what the media said.

Just like the boston herald broke the story about the pats filming the rams practice the day before the superbowl. This got nationwide coverage and was all everyone talked about in regards spygate.

Of this didnt get as much media attention as the boston herald story breaking the rams superbowl scandal.

http://bostonherald.com/sports/footb..._05_14_Apology

It is of course the same paper that broke the story, retracting it because their source had no proof and the story was found to be totally false. It still makes me lol when people point to this as actually happening when the people who broke the story retracted it like 2 months later.

I like the part where the butthurt Eagles players are supposed to know the difference between an effective Bellichick gameplan and playcalling that supposedly shows they definitely had their signals.

I don't think you're crazy if you think these penalties are too harsh.

Almost by definition the penalties are "too harsh" because Goodell wants them to be considered just that.

what a horrible hyperbolic post

patriots homer just furious ppl associate one sin with the other

Spygate posts are so aids

yeah i agree, I don't think they're that unjust but they definitely are trying to make a point in lieu of outside factors

Yeah, that's pretty much the definition of hearsay.

Sorry for contributing to another Spygate rehashment, I get the Cheatriots and asterisk stuff and enjoying BB getting some arrogance shoved up his ass. I just dont really understand the raw feelings of butthurt five years after the fact given the facts involved. Oh well, to each their own.

To bring this on topic, I thought the Pats punishment for Spygate was always more than fair, but it looks more lenient in light of the hammer brought down today. If this was the measuring stick, BB should have gotten time off. Nowhere close to a season, but a game or two for violating league directives.

the penalties were enormous. williams' career is for all intents and purposes over, payton's is not only jeopardized but this is essentially a 7.5 million dollar fine for him. suspensions are likely coming and the saints lost 2nd and 3rd round picks for 2 years (not as much as i expected, but still a big sum)

those are harsh ****ing penalties, as they needed to be to legitimize goodell's aim, but thinking it's too harsh makes u a scumbag? lol gtfo

Goodell wants to make decisions to protect the financial interests of the NFL. He should not receive praise for being some moral crusader. He is, along with Payton/Williams/etc, a scumbag.

I wouldn't have blinked twice if anyone involved in offering incentives to injure opposing players for years before covering it up was told to simply GTFO. Why should these guys be allowed back?

I thought they lost 2 2nds? that's a lot considering there was no 1st round pick to take away

what's going to happen to the players involved? They will have zero defense for half the year

I agree penalties are really harsh but like someone said earlier, They were meant to be too harsh.

These punishments damages the franchise and puts them back a few years. They got an elite QB in the prime of his career. This year they got no coach, no draft pick til 3rd round, and possible lose a few players on D if more suspensions come.

The saints had a pretty legitamate superbowl window for a few more years. These punishments possibly might have closed that window.

herp derp

the penalties being harsh is fine. i have no problem with them, **** williams, **** payton and **** every player involved. but it's not unreasonable at all for anyone to think they're too harsh

these are penalties meant to imply to the outside world that the Saints basically invented the bounty system. I bet that will be the league's narrative going forward.

did you eat paint chips as a kid?

like, every time i think my perspective of boston fans may be flawed, there you are. you're basically goodie without any of the redeeming qualities