Official 2011-12 NFL Regular Season Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']They've been to 2 Super Bowls since. Yes they loss, but getting to the Super Bowl is impressive any year. T[/QUOTE]

But who's to say they beat the Rams without taping the walk-through? Marshall Faulk and Kurt Warner to this day are livid over it and thought during the game the Pats knew the plays they were running.

It's still a shot to their legacy, IMO. Then again, it's only my opinion.
 
[quote name='DestroVega']But who's to say they beat the Rams without taping the walk-through? Marshall Faulk and Kurt Warner to this day are livid over it and thought during the game the Pats knew the plays they were running.
[/QUOTE]

I didn't think there ever was a tape. I think it was rumored they did, then the paper that spread the news retracted the statement.

Unless there's been news since, I don't think a tape was ever confirmed.
 
[quote name='4thHorseman']I didn't think there ever was a tape. I think it was rumored they did, then the paper that spread the news retracted the statement.

Unless there's been news since, I don't think a tape was ever confirmed.[/QUOTE]

Correct. I was going to let that one go since I already said I "wasn't going to get into an argument about Spygate". But yeah, there was no truth to that report and it was retracted by the Herald. Didn't stop it from becoming part of the Spygate lore though.
 
[quote name='DestroVega']According to what I read, the NFL reviewed the tape then destroyed it.[/QUOTE]

Man, it's been a while since I thought too much about Spygate. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me!

The tapes that the NFL destroyed were game tapes that the Patriots recorded the week prior. I think teams are allowed to record games, but they have designated areas to do so. Patriots did it in another area that gave them a better view of the signs being given to the players.
 
Sigh, and here I swore I wasn't going to get dragged into this...

[quote name='DestroVega']According to what I read, the NFL reviewed the tape then destroyed it.[/QUOTE]

You read wrong. That was in reference to the sideline tapes. There was never any Rams walkthrough tape. The Boston Herald published it citing an unnamed source, the league said it wasn't true, and the Herald both retraced the story and apologized for it.

Literally the only thing the Patriots did to violate the league rule was not having the person filming from the sideline standing in the designated area (which every team does to this day) and not wearing a lime green vest indicating him as team personnel. Watch any NFL game on any Sunday and you may well see team employees filming the game from the sideline in lime green vests. Here's a Jets employee doing exactly that in a game against the Patriots from this past season:

Spygate-II.jpg

The reason the Patriots got punished was because they continued to do it after the NFL sent out a memo to all teams telling them to stop. That's essentially the same reason that the Saints have been punished so severely now. To think that plenty of teams weren't doing exactly what the Patriots were doing prior to the NFL memo is as naive as thinking the Saints were the only team in the NFL with a bounty program. The arrogant thing in both cases was continuing to do it after being directly told not to, which is why they both got crushed with penalties.

Edit: In other words, exactly what 4thHorsemen said.
 
Last comment (I hope) on this: Belief that Spygate lead directly to the Patriots Super Bowl titles is basically the equivalent of the birther movement in the NFL. There's essentially no evidence whatsoever of any competitive advantage, and yet people will continue to believe it just because it's easier to hate the Patriots than research the issue and challenge the convenient perception of it. Going by overall record, the team has actually been more successful since they stopped filming than before. Sure, they haven't won a Super Bowl, but they've been to two and in the playoffs practically every year.

Spygate became a big deal because of the media circus and because of Arlen Spector trying to set up Senate hearings.

Right on cue, the same thing is happening with Bountygate: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7...senator-dick-durbin-sets-hearing-bounties-nfl

Much like Spygate, I think the Saints were in the wrong for going against league policy but I really don't see how they gained any competitive advantage through their actions. But just like Spygate, I'm sure there will always be people who say the Saint's title is tainted (I don't think it is at all). It's unfortunate, but in both cases they did kind of bring it on themselves.
 
I am being honest, the bountygate (ugh thats not a good nickname) points to a huge problem that no one seems to be talking about.

How does one legally win one of these bounties? Its not like knowing player X has a bounty you can magically hit 4x your normal force. That means that in order to "knock a person out" or whatever you have to do things slightly on the illegal side. To me that clearly points to the fact that NFL refs must have no clue what they are looking at on the game to game basis.

To me it just seems like Refs should be able to notice if player are targeting another player in forms of injury. I just dont understand how having a bounty on a player doesnt vastly change the way in which you hit someone....unless you do it illegally. As a ref you should notice if a player is getting hit multiple times after the play when it normally doesnt happened.

You guys know me, I am all for letting people hit....but clearly with the 15 refs and 34758347895734987593 cameras on the field each game someone somewhere should notice this and issue a warning for the refs to look for it.
 
[quote name='bvharris']Last comment (I hope) on this: Belief that Spygate lead directly to the Patriots Super Bowl titles is basically the equivalent of the birther movement in the NFL. There's essentially no evidence whatsoever of any competitive advantage, and yet people will continue to believe it just because it's easier to hate the Patriots than research the issue and challenge the convenient perception of it. Going by overall record, the team has actually been more successful since they stopped filming than before. Sure, they haven't won a Super Bowl, but they've been to two and in the playoffs practically every year.

Spygate became a big deal because of the media circus and because of Arlen Spector trying to set up Senate hearings.

Right on cue, the same thing is happening with Bountygate: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7...senator-dick-durbin-sets-hearing-bounties-nfl

Much like Spygate, I think the Saints were in the wrong for going against league policy but I really don't see how they gained any competitive advantage through their actions. But just like Spygate, I'm sure there will always be people who say the Saint's title is tainted (I don't think it is at all). It's unfortunate, but in both cases they did kind of bring it on themselves.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying it lead directly to it, but th fact they haven't won a super bowl since it broke sticks with me that's all. And again, just my opinion.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']I am being honest, the bountygate (ugh thats not a good nickname) points to a huge problem that no one seems to be talking about.

How does one legally win one of these bounties? Its not like knowing player X has a bounty you can magically hit 4x your normal force. That means that in order to "knock a person out" or whatever you have to do things slightly on the illegal side. To me that clearly points to the fact that NFL refs must have no clue what they are looking at on the game to game basis.

To me it just seems like Refs should be able to notice if player are targeting another player in forms of injury. I just dont understand how having a bounty on a player doesnt vastly change the way in which you hit someone....unless you do it illegally. As a ref you should notice if a player is getting hit multiple times after the play when it normally doesnt happened.

You guys know me, I am all for letting people hit....but clearly with the 15 refs and 34758347895734987593 cameras on the field each game someone somewhere should notice this and issue a warning for the refs to look for it.[/QUOTE]

Apparently the NFL has reviewed a ton of their hits and there doesn't seem to be many, if any, that were out of the ordinary.
 
The Colts have dominated the news today.

Drew Stanton has been traded with the Jets' 7th round pick to the Colts for their 6th round pick. The Colts also signed WR Donnie Avery.

Denver signed TEs Jacob Tamme and Joel Dreessen, which gives them five TEs on their roster to be able to run that rare quintuple TE formation.

C Jeff Saturday signed a two-year deal with the Packers.

Colts' RG Jeff Diem retired along with the Bears' RB Marion Barber.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']Denver signed TEs Jacob Tamme and Joel Dreessen, which gives them five TEs on their roster to be able to run that rare quintuple TE formation.[/QUOTE]

This made me laugh.

PEYTON GOT ALL DA TARGETZ!

Probably for the best as he wont be able to throw the ball more than 15 yards anyways. Gonna have to have all them TE's in the middle of the field running them slants.
 
[quote name='DestroVega']I'm not saying it lead directly to it, but th fact they haven't won a super bowl since it broke sticks with me that's all. And again, just my opinion.[/QUOTE]
They've appeared in two Super Bowls and had a 16-0 season since... And their level of success only diminished to that degree because the core of their defense got old. Their dynasty window closed when Brady missed that season with the knee injury.
 
Alex Smith's three year contract has an out clause for the Niners. He has to be on the team on April 1, 2013 in order to get most if it, so it's essentially a one-year contract with a 2 year option. Also, the Niners signed Josh Johnson, who played under Harbaugh at USD. Along with Peytonwatch, it's pretty clear Harbaugh really wants to light a fire under Smith's ass to improve.
 
[quote name='ced']Alex Smith's three year contract has an out clause for the Niners. He has to be on the team on April 1, 2013 in order to get most if it, so it's essentially a one-year contract with a 2 year option. Also, the Niners signed Josh Johnson, who played under Harbaugh at USD. Along with Peytonwatch, it's pretty clear Harbaugh really wants to light a fire under Smith's ass to improve.[/QUOTE]

Unless they can pry Brees from the Saints after this year, where else would they go? Josh Johnson is not the answer and Kaepernick is gonna need like 3 more years of molding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top