tparich Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Why Belichick continued to tape in 2007 is beyond me and just about every Pats fan I've spoken with. If it was such an advantage as some have claimed, why did BB have the camera guy in plain view on the sideline? The NFL has known this stuff has been going on League wide for a long time. Here is my view on the whole thing. He continues to tape being his ego has gotten to the point where he thought that even if cought nothing would happen because of who he is. As far as the side line thing with the Jets - To me this move seems like more of a bully mentality. trying to remind Eric that he can do whatever he wants to him and get away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 If it wasn't an advantage then why do it? I feel he did it because he thought other teams were still doing it. BB is beyond competitive. He wants to win. He is also a huge fan of the history of football and his late father coached at Navy. I think he's just paranoid about everything concerning his team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbyjet69 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 If it wasn't an advantage then why do it? I don't know why he had a camera man in plain view. That is a good question. He probably thought that if he had a cameraman in plain view noone can say it was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I feel he did it because he thought other teams were still doing it. BB is beyond competitive. He wants to win. He is also a huge fan of the history of football and his late father coached at Navy. I think he's just paranoid about everything concerning his team. Well that is good. Because he is definitely going to be in the record books now. His name will most likely appear on the bottom of several pages. Right after one of these * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUM-KNEE Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Well that is good. Because he is definitely going to be in the record books now. His name will most likely appear on the bottom of several pages. Right after one of these * Max, OT question. Was that new Rambo movie any good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Max, OT question. Was that new Rambo movie any good? Let me preface this by saying -- I will never admit that a Stallone movie isn't any good. That being said it was awesome. On my list of all time Stallone films it is tied in 9th place with Over The Top. That is impressive since the Rocky series is taking up spots 1 - 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 And you were saying? As I have said all along, they are not the only ones that do it. Just the ones dumb enough to get caught. Especially, with all the technology out there. http://www.eye4digitalcameras.com/product/TDC151V I feel he did it because he thought other teams were still doing it. BB is beyond competitive. He wants to win. He is also a huge fan of the history of football and his late father coached at Navy. I think he's just paranoid about everything concerning his team. In the end, the NFL has never said stealing signs is illegal. Only taping them is. It is ok to sit in the booth with binoculars and record all the signs, but use a video and it is illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUM-KNEE Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Let me preface this by saying -- I will never admit that a Stallone movie isn't any good. That being said it was awesome. On my list of all time Stallone films it is tied in 9th place with Over The Top. That is impressive since the Rocky series is taking up spots 1 - 6. No really, was it any good? I will trust your judgement , I will see it then. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanLeaf16 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I wish Stallone would play me in a movie. Im very much a Hanibal or Leonidas type character, I fell before my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 No really, was it any good? I will trust your judgement , I will see it then. Thanks It is what it is...a Stallone movie. Not much on plot, but the body count is high. It is bloody. I did not like the Claymore detonation, but it is passable entertainment. I do not know if I would want to pay full price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUM-KNEE Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 It is what it is...a Stallone movie. Not much on plot, but the body count is high. It is bloody. I did not like the Claymore detonation, but it is passable entertainment. I do not know if I would want to pay full price. I usually wait for the DVD to come out actually. Too many punk kids ramming around in the theatre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alk Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Btw.. Not because im a jet fan or anything but still that first round pick they got taken from them should have been awarded to the jets... Why? Because they were the ones that squealed? If all of this comes out to be true, there were other teams hurt by this but the Jets weren't in that game considering they didn't even have a chance to use the tapes before they were confiscated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSJ Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Why? Because they were the ones that squealed? If all of this comes out to be true, there were other teams hurt by this but the Jets weren't in that game considering they didn't even have a chance to use the tapes before they were confiscated. I agree ALK, the Jets should not have received that pick. I do think that the opening game of the season should have counted as a loss for the Patriots* though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alk Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I agree ALK, the Jets should not have received that pick. I do think that the opening game of the season should have counted as a loss for the Patriots* though. It still goes back to the same point. It had no effect on the outcome of the game. The tapes were to be used for the next time they played said team. That being said, we lost the Super Bowl so take all of the wins away that you want. I don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I agree ALK, the Jets should not have received that pick. I do think that the opening game of the season should have counted as a loss for the Patriots* though. WHy F up your good pick? Then the Patriots would have been ahead of you with the top choice of LBer and without the pressure of being undefeated would have won their 4th title in 7 years. The NFL did you a favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSJ Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 It still goes back to the same point. It had no effect on the outcome of the game. The tapes were to be used for the next time they played said team. That being said, we lost the Super Bowl so take all of the wins away that you want. I don't care. No I know - but this obviously was not the first time as Goodell admited. So the past tapes could have helped them. Either way you should not get credit for a win that you cheated in, period. Now mind you I do not think the Jets should have gotten a win either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I agree ALK, the Jets should not have received that pick. I do think that the opening game of the season should have counted as a loss for the Patriots* though. I disagree. The tape was confiscated before the end of the 1st half. The reason the Jets lost that game was because no one could cover Randy Moss or Wes Welker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSJ Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I disagree. The tape was confiscated before the end of the 1st half. The reason the Jets lost that game was because no one could cover Randy Moss or Wes Welker. But if what the Pats said is true, then the previously taped games helped them steal signals from that game. Ah whatever, the punishment was harsh enough. I don't understand why it was given out before the investigation was complete though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 But if what the Pats said is true, then the previously taped games helped them steal signals from that game. Ah whatever, the punishment was harsh enough. I don't understand why it was given out before the investigation was complete though. The Jets and Pats played 3 times in 2006. I doubt Mangini was stupid enough to keep the D signals the same as he was the one who blew the whistle on the Pats in 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSJ Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 The Jets and Pats played 3 times in 2006. I doubt Mangini was stupid enough to keep the D signals the same as he was the one who blew the whistle on the Pats in 2007. That is a good point. Still who knows those playbooks are huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 The Jets and Pats played 3 times in 2006. I doubt Mangini was stupid enough to keep the D signals the same as he was the one who blew the whistle on the Pats in 2007. Mangini was an Assistant under Belichick in some form or another for the better part of 10 years. They meet twice a year. Let's just say they are quite famaliar with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetophile Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Let's try an analogy here (albeit a bad one). In some ways, this is like someone being accused of being a pedophile. Even if "untrue", people will look at that person like he has the plague the rest of his life. FALSE accusations ruin people. However, if kiddie porn is found on his computer even though he never acted out his vileness, he's still vile. And in possession of something illegal. And in big, big trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.