What are your thoughts on this? While it seems teams do things to gain a certain advantage, such as scuff footballs, it seems the Patriots take it a step too far. I think it tarnishes their wins.
Your thoughts?
Printable View
What are your thoughts on this? While it seems teams do things to gain a certain advantage, such as scuff footballs, it seems the Patriots take it a step too far. I think it tarnishes their wins.
Your thoughts?
If someone purposely deflated the footballs to actually gain an advantage in the game, then it is really a shame. The game was a blow out....there are many other things about a game that doesn't involve the ball....sacking the quarterback, calling the plays, tackling the players.
However, the referees handled each and every football from both sides during the game before any player touched them. Wouldn't they be able to tell the difference?
Stinks and tarnishes the win no matter what because that is all people are focusing on.
Deflated balls didn't help them rush for 150 yds and 3 rushing TD's. Each team uses their own and the Colts couldn't get anything going on offense. It would have been a blow out either way. I'm sure lots of teams doctor the footballs, they just happened to get caught.
Oh, I agree that other teams do it, but I am speaking of the broader picture with the Patriots. This is not the first time something like this has happened with the Patriots. They aren't punished anywhere as harshly as other teams. Look at what happened to the Saints. Coaches were suspended for a year!Quote:
Originally Posted by Scallywag
I don't join in on the discussion in this forum very often :blush: but being related by marriage to many rabid Pats fans I feel like I am in the middle of this! That said, while I don't think it would have changed the outcome of the Pats/Colts game, it certainly does affect the integrity of the game. I am very discouraged, as I am every time an NFL team is touched by a scandal of some sort, at how fans are willing to tolerate cheating (or any other wrongdoing), all in the name of winning. And not only tolerate it, but actually encourage it. One of my husband's cousins posted that "Cheating is cool, as long as it's not another team doing it against the Pats!" Really? This is what "fair play" has come to in the 21st century? :shake:
This is a non issue. Once the balls are checked in before the game it is on the officials. At least 1 or 2 officials touch the ball before every play. A play can not start until the official physically places the ball on the ground and "spots" the ball. If the balls were altered to the point it made a difference why did the officials not notice?
Answer, they didn't notice because it's no big deal!
Or they didn't notice because Vegas told them not to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff
I'm a Pats fan. I'm really discouraged by this controversy. I can't think my team is blameless, but I do think fingers tend to point their way because they're the Patriots (which is no excuse). How blameless is your team? How clean is the NFL? How often does this happen with other teams, but fingers are not pointing? Aaron Rogers has already said he likes to play with over-inflated balls and no one batted an eye. The balls in question were replaced before halftime, and likely had no affect on the win.
In the micro, I would say it's not a big deal, but two things really come to mind ...
#1 - If it's not a big deal, why would they do it when they know it violates the rules and could get them in trouble?
#2 - This team's history is becoming hard to ignore. If nothing else it just further taints an already somewhat tarnished legacy.
Not sure if just touching and gripping and throwing make any difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff
Regardless, why have the rule if it doesn't matter. Brady has already said he likes underinflated footballs so this whole thing is fishy. Only game it might have mattered for was the Baltimore one. This last game - it wasn't going to make a difference. They could have played with a pee wee football and the colts would have lost....
But they did notice. Before half time. They took the balls in question out of the game in the first half. Balls are taken out of play by officials all the time. This wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't the Patriots. It wouldn't have been investigated, discussed, or even more than a blip in the sports news if mentioned at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff
Because the Patriots have been caught before, Sherri. Also, almost no one believes that Brady and Belichick didn't know this was done. Troy Aikman was quoted as saying that no equipment manager for an NFL team is going to tamper with equipment without talking to the player and/or coach.Quote:
Originally Posted by SBETigg
That's the problem I think most people have with this issue. It is the pattern of the devious behavior by the Pats. I was listening to an interview with former NFL coach Brian Billick this morning driving to work. He thinks the NFL is checking all the facts and then it will make a ruling. The penalty will be worse if it is found that Brady and Belichick knowingly lied. Billick said that was one of the reasons Sean Payton was out for a full season. He kept saying he did not know of any wrongdoing by the Saints, but the NFL presented proof he was aware of what the Saints were doing.
If the officiating crew took them out of play in the first half then I think it's even less of an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by SBETigg
Just my opinion!
I'm not a Pats or a Colts fan nor do I like to argue. I think the media is blowing this way out of proportion at the expense of the Super Bowl! Fine the Pats, take draft picks, I don't care but
Please don't ruin the Super Bowl!
The NFL has to do something in response, but they have to walk a fine line, and do a real balancing act, so they don't ruin the Super Bowl ratings or results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff
They can't do nothing at all, or they risk losing the legitimacy and integrity of the "NFL" brand, and without that it slips closer and closer to being just a football version of the "WWE" or other "sports" that are really just entertainment in an athletic context. The NFL has managed to stand head and shoulders above that kind perception in the past, but they have to be very careful or they will lose some of their lofty position in that regard.
On the other hand, doing something like suspending Brady from playing in the Super Bowl would render the whole game and the results practically meaningless, so that it would be permanently known as an "asterisk" or "Yeah-but" games. I don't think they want to risk that either.
With all the other issues that have happened with the NFL this year, and their poor response to players' off-the-field issues, they have let themselves get painted into a tight corner, public relations wise. They are going to be heavily criticized, no matter what they do.
I don't think it's just the Patriot's history that is making it a news item, Sherri; any team playing for a spot in the Super Bowl would have gotten the same coverage in the media for allegedly cheating. And personally, I would feel the same way no matter what team it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by SBETigg
If we're only talking about that specific game, I would agree that it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome. But I'm talking about the bigger picture here in sports, where cheating and unethical, even criminal behavior, seems to be tolerated beyond what would be acceptable in other situations (just don't get caught!). For example, you have a smart high school kid who everyone feels sure will ace his SAT's. To hedge his bets, he writes a some key notes on a piece of paper and tucks it on the inside of his shirt sleeve. He takes the test and gets caught cheating. Does anyone say that he probably would have done just as well anyway, so the matter should just be dropped? Like I said, it's the integrity of the game at stake in these situations and, IMO, it's sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff
The word is that this was a setup by the Ravens -feeding the info to Indy. It's been pretty well known that the Refs haven't been doing their job when it comes to checking balls. There was a time when they actually used a gauge, but now they spin them in their hands, feel them, check the laces and their done. Basically, the balls are submitted the way QB's like them and they hope they are approved. One ball boy reported that they had never seen a ball be rejected. Brady had the opportunity yesterday to blow the top off it by turning in other QB's in the league(Rodgers already admitted his balls don't meet the standard), which some thought would happen but it never did. He was probably afraid of being tossed from the "QB Club". So read it any way you like, but once the balls are inspected by the Refs .....it's all on them.
And the conspiracy theory begins. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by GAN
I'm not sure where you've been, but welcome back! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Altair
Even with the whole "spygate" scandal, there were teams equally guilty of the same behavior and not called out on it. It doesn't make it right, but the Pats were not the only ones then and they are not the only ones now. And yet. Once again.
Beth, this simply isn't true. Other QBs have voiced a preference for balls to be under or over-inflated and no one called them out for cheating. Aaron Rogers has said for years that he likes his balls inflated to the max. Even during Super Bowl interviews. Other players have said that every team does something a little different with their balls. If it is a big deal, then the NFL needs to show consistency, and they have not. The officials in this case approved the balls. Then they took them out of play as needed. As they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNHFLTX
Troy Aikman has his own axe to grind. He's not speaking without bias. I believe Belichick on this one. I'm not sure I believe Brady. But I don't buy into much from Troy Aikman. It's entirely possible that tampering was done with or without Brady's knowledge. It's also possible (not completely likely, but possible) that the balls deflated due to other conditions. ESPN had a scientist on who found it entirely likely. Though, I'm not quite on board with that either. And the bottom line is that other teams have played with balls that were found not quite acceptable, had their balls taken out of the game, and no one launched an investigation calling it a cheating scandal. If it is, then there needs to be consistency. The NFL has a real problem with things like consistency, as I think we can all agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer
Let's get something clear -everyone can believe what they wish, but after hearing everything, it's hard for me to think this was "tampering". QB's like the balls to be a certain way ...whatever the PSI. I honestly think that the thought of meeting the leagues requirements for PSI is not something that is given much thought by ANY QB, since it hasn't been enforced. It seems strange to start enforcing a "rule", that was ignored for 16 games, during a Conference Championship game. The NFL has a real issue, it's been a BAD year -take the Dallas-Detroit game a few weeks ago ...tell me the refs don't have an earpiece with direct-connect to Vegas. That was the biggest hatchet job I've ever seen -I can hear them, "you better pick up that flag."
As for the Pats, it is proven that they broke the "rule." I'm sure the NFL is going to push any punishment off till after the Super Bowl -which I'd be shocked if it was severe. This will set the stage for Bill to go into his "you know what mode"(insert 2 letters here) -I wouldn't be shocked to see the Pats run the table next year and be the first team to do so since Miami. He has the cash in the salary cap ....and the will.
It hasn't been proven at all. What happened to the balls? They still don't know. Was it tampering? Was it weather conditions? If tampering, who tampered, who knew about it? This is still all under investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by GAN
Well, maybe it's time to go back to the home team, or maybe even the NFL, providing the footballs for each game. If the QB's don't like it, oh well. At least then there will be the assumption that the balls are standardized.
I think that's a great idea. Before this all happened, that's what I thought they did.Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNHFLTX
SNL's press conference skits were funny last night, though.
It's pretty clear, and even conceded by Belichick, that the balls were below the league minimum. That's enough for me to consider it proven. Of course, there is no explanation as to why. But there never will be -again, QB's go for a feel ...they don't give a ^%#} a$& what the PSI is. It's the same ball Brady has used all season without an issue ...but since the Refs never actually check, it would lead me to believe it's a non-issue on most days .....until a team is fed info(by another team) that they could complain and start a controversy before the super bowl. It's funny that Indy would even consider bringing it up, the Patriots could have played them with a bar of soap and still won.Quote:
Originally Posted by SBETigg
Just like Watergate, Nixon had no chance of losing the election, the break-in was for nothing and he paid the price. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by GAN
I just feel that The Patriots are always one step ahead pushing the rules.
They are stacked with Talent, and still they push it.
Maybe a year suspension for Bielicheck like the league did with Sean Peyton even though they couldn't prove he was or wasn't involved in any illegal doings regarding the bounty scandal...it starts at the top.
Julie:mickey:
One thing is certain, they are NOT "stacked" with talent. They have a QB they took in the 6th round, they use running backs that either no one has ever heard of( or that no one wants), WR's that were college QB's......Quote:
Originally Posted by princessgirls
Unless you mean Revis(who is pretty old) and Wilfork (who isnt getting younger).
As an excuse, it's easy to hate Belichick because he is a "cheater" ... Bottom line -people hate him because he's the best darn coach ever. He doesn't need 1st round draft picks to beat other teams ...he TRADES them away! He picks up players(albeit usually talented) that no other teams want, that are from other teams' practice squads. He releases/trades the most talented players on his roster -you go on and on here with a list a mile long! No coach can put together a team and make them work together like he can ..and I don't think in any sport. So for all the other coaches, players, fans ....stop wasting your efforts complaining about the two times you think he cheated, and start building yourself a TEAM!
Are you saying Brady is not talented?Quote:
Originally Posted by GAN
Depends how you define talent -does he have the physical skills of Rodgers, Manning, Stafford, maybe even Wilson? I don't think so. Thirty-one teams thought he wasn't talented for FIVE rounds! Ever see his combine photo? Ever watch some of his throws(probably due to deflated balls, I'm sure!)? Ask some of the guys who played with him in college -he was a long shot to make a team, let alone be a Hall of Fame QB. Does he have a talent to win? You bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scar
When someone refers to a team being "stacked" I think 1st Round All-Pro talent -I think, who are you putting on YOUR fantasy team? Not too many Patriot players make that list. You've seen it before -take some of those players and put them on another team ...yeah, how come they don't look All-Pro caliber anymore? On that team they look good ...out on there own, sometimes not. Just my observation of course.
Yeah, he may have been a 6th round draft pick in 2000, but now we have the benefit of hindsight that the scouts didn't have 14 years ago. Johnny Unitas was a 9th round pick, but nobody can dispute that he is among the best QB's to ever play in the NFL. So is Brady, and he will be in the Hall of Fame the first year the becomes eligible.Quote:
Originally Posted by GAN
Sure, we have hindsight for everything we do. But my point was, Brady didn't have (and may still not have) the skill set that defines a "successful" NFL QB. The fact that he has gotten to where he is today is more an "it" factor than actual pure "talent." "It" could just be a leadership quality that makes everyone around a person better ...and that's what I believe he has.
I define talent as being able to make plays that help your team win. By that definition he easily has/had the same talent as Rodgers and Manning, and way more than Stafford and Wilson.Quote:
Originally Posted by GAN
And those 31 teams that passed on him for 5 rounds included Belichick and the Patriots.
I guess part of evaluating a player is knowing when your competition just doesn't know any better. And if you asked Belichick, he'd probably say Brady barely showed enough talent to warrant a 6th round throwaway pick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scar