um first of all genious, read this paragraph you wrote. THERE IS NO QUESTION TO ANSWER.
further more and more importantly, you are clouding the facts. Matt did nothing but confirm what Belichick DID NOT DO that however is not the issue nor is it affirmation that Bill did not tape signals, which is what he was punished for. Its already established that Bill did not use tapes DURING the game, it was never an issue, so Matt attesting to that has no revelance on the issue you and i are debating. Matt confirming that Bill did not use tapes during games is only stating the obvious being that that is not what he was punished for. you are trying to cloud the issue, Bill was never accused of taping DURING games this has been established, so matt saying he didnt has no revelance, nice try. they are both admitting to something Bill didnt do.
and also i like how you claim that mulitple people accuse Matt of having more than questionable character and try to dismiss his legitimacy talking about what he did in college, this and that, but yet you take his word and use him as the corner stone when it comes in handy make up your mind already. cant have it both ways...you gonna reply to this?? doubt it.
I'm not clouding anything, you said anyone who took Belichicks word as gospel had their head in the sand, but it has been proven that Belichick was the only one telling the truth every time he opened his mouth, and made a statement about the case, making your statement untrue, and false... You think your so clever with your Walsh point, but your not.
Roger Goodel stated that Belichick never used any tapes during any games. Ha ha, so we have the head of the NFL confirming what Belichick claimed back in the day, as well as your boy Walsh. I called WALSH'S story into question regarding certain parts - (most of all have to do with the sb aspect of this case, which you claimed to not care about long ago). Walsh made himself seem more important than he was, and he lied on his resume. The guy is a scumbag, but I don't think it's unreasonable to cite him over something
the head of the NFL also stated. Further more, you make me laugh at your lack of knowledge when it comes to this case. Belichick using tapes during games was a HUGE question, and a main focus of this case. You honestly didn't know this? We didn't know how the tapes where used until a few weeks back. Btw, I'm not the one calling Walsh into question, certain NFL personnel he worked with are, and it's over the rams sb aspect of this case. Just to give you a little insight on the legal part of this case, many of the lies Walsh is telling might be formulated to save his skin, but he is forced by law, to tell the truth about things that directly implicate the pats in regards to taping. So he would have to tell the truth about the pats using tapes in games - ( because those tapes exist, and he stole them), but could lie about instances that he says happened, that cannot be proven to not have occured - to help his poor image.
i love how you ignore the point. Bill wasn't punished for using the tape during the game, obviously he didnt. he was punished for taping signals..YES HE DIDNT USE TAPES DURING THE GAME, I NEVER SAID HE DID.
Bill was punished for taping signals from an illegal part of the field, taping signals is not illegal from certain areas in the stadium. One of the main points of this case was using film during games, you didn't say this, because you didn't know it. Most critics were upset over the possibility of the pats using tapes during games to sync up signals, which is laughable. It could never be done in 12 min.
You keep using "misinterpreted" the rules however you previously stated:
body88
Moderator
Getbig V
Posts: 9843
Re: Should the Patriots give back their SB rings?
« Reply #139 on: September 13, 2007, 08:35:10 PM » Quote
Beli tried to expose a loophole and got nabbed. he got greedy.[/color]
Make up your mind, he couldn't have "misinterpreted" AND purposely tried to "expose" a loop hole like you said. "exposing" cant be done while being "misinterpreted" again nice attempt and nice try..Bill knew what he was doing, you admitted it yourself. stop contradicting yourself.
Ha ha, your not clever Atheist. The facts of the case had not come out at that point, and I was stating why I felt Belichick might have violated the rule. At that point I had no proof to say that belichick actually misinterpreted the rules - ( even though I believed him) so I stated why I thought he did what he did. Now I can cite Roger Goodel and Matt Walsh as sources validating what Belichick said. This was a case that was constantly evolving and changing do to false reports and OPINIONS stated by the media. Btw, exposing a loophole in a rule under the impression that you cannot get into trouble for it is a missenterpatation.
PROVEN to have little to no value? then why tape for all that time?
PROVEN to have little to no value? then why such the harsh penalty?
PROVEN to have little to no value? then why did Jimmy Johnson do it all those years?
yes it was sooo invaluble...obviously.. again i just prove youre wrong. why did jimmy do it then
We have gone over this a million times. The head of the NFL and several other high profile football minds have ALL STATED TAPING HAS LITTLE TO NO VALUE. You may not agree, but those are the facts : )
I have no idea why Jimmy did it. I know he has stated a million times that it has little to no effect on a game.
Atheist, buddy, your not proving me wrong... I just told you that the head of the NFL, Parcels, Johnson and MANY others have stated that taping had very little value. Your question is that, a question. I don't know the answer to it. All I know that is many of the greatest football minds have stated that taping is not a big deal. I guess you are saying that Bill Parcels, Rogor Goodel, Jimmy Johnson, Art Rooney Junior and Jim Mora are lying, ha ha, ok! I answer your questions with testamonial from credibal NFL minds - ( that proves you wrong), and you just keep asking. In a real argument I win.
you will be to when you move out of your parents house..
Actually, I moved to my second home- ( in a nice section of Boston) not to long ago. Insulting me in that way, lets me know for a fact you still live with your parents : ) If not, prove it.
hink so? take the times out and my stance is still more than revelant. go ahead..
"belicheat" was used to manipulate you, which obviously it did. +1 sorry i hurt your feelings
Yes I do. Your full of shit, and you showed how nonobjective you really are when you called him Belicheat. You ob have an axe to grind, to bad you don't know much about the case!
again you contradict yourself, Parcells has done "NOTHING" since Belichick left his side? everyteam he has coached he turned around, go tell anyone who knows anything about football that Parcells has done "NOTHING" since Belichick left and they'll laugh you out of the room.
regarding the contradiction, you say Parcells has done "NOTHING" since Belichick left, that was almost 20 years ago or so..but in the same post you say Parcells is one of the greratest ever? again he cant accomplish "NOTHING" since Belichick left and be one of the greatest ever to live.. make up your mind.
you must like the taste of your foot...
Oh brother, your lack of football knowledge is shocking. First off, Belichick left Parcels when Parcels left the pats in 2000, ha ha. The only one who would get laughed at in a legit football conversation would be you, for not knowing that fact! You had no idea about that one huh? Secondly, we where on the topic of CHAMPIONSHIPS, and how many of those has Parcels won in the last ten years? Bill has done nothing since Belichick left his side, and thats not a knock on Parcels skill set. Parcels is one of the greatest motivators and talent evaluates to ever coach the game, that has nothing to do with rings. However, Belichick is the man who was behind those defenses that won him so many games. Saying Bill has done nothing without Belichick does not Tarnish his talent evaluating skills and motivating ability, it proves my point of the importance Belichick played in getting Parcels his wins - which we were arguing.
a perfect example of you stating your opinion as fact. brother.
Bod youre hilarious
Not really, as shown above you know jack shit about football, and if you actually watch the Giants - Bills sb, you will see why Belichicks unorthodox defensive plan won them that game. I wanted to let you save yourself, but now it's to late.
The defensive plan Bill used to defeat the Bills is on display at the the freaking pro football hall of fame, lol. It's not my opinion brother, it's a fact. Why would they put the defensive plan on display at the football hall of fame, if it was not the key to the win? Not to mention, if you knew anything about football history, you would know how good that Bills team was on O. Below, is a qoute from wikopedia regarding the gameplan, haha. The only halarious thing about this convo, is the fact that you really don't know much about the sport you are spouting off about.
His defensive game plan from the New York Giants' 20-19 upset of the Buffalo Bills in Super Bowl XXV is now in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, as is his defensive game plan from the Patriots' 20-17 win over the St. Louis Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI.