Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Marshall Faulk's Comments
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Los Angeles Rams
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 67841
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Starless wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
Starless wrote:
At what point do the domestic abuse allegations against Faulk become fair game if he keeps this up? Think


http://a.espncdn.com/nfl/news/2003/0512/1552663.html

That case was already adjudicated. Glad to see that when you're confronted with an inconvenient view, you look to smear the source's character. Laughing
You missed my point entirely.

The stuff Marshall loves to bring up was already dismissed as false by everyone who isn't Marshall.


I didn't miss your point. Marshall's case was adjudicated in open court. Both sides got to present their evidence. The jury found in favor of Marshall.

The NFL never presented this case in any sort of open manner. And the NFL destroyed the evidence so that it could not be reviewed later. Which is an odd thing to do if the evidence doesn't show anything damning. Of course, by destroying the evidence, the NFL prevented any sort of later investigation by the U.S. Senate.

There's no comparison. Nobody can dismiss it as false because none of them know the facts. Why? Because the NFL destroyed the evidence!!!!! Laughing

Marshall knows more of the facts than any other person in the media (except Warner).
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
l3lind golfer


Most Valuable Poster (6th Ballot)

Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 52667
Location: California
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

^Yea but notice how Kurt Warner doesn't cry about this every single year.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 67841
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

l3lind golfer wrote:
^Yea but notice how Kurt Warner doesn't cry about this every single year.


http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/news/4491713-kurt-warner-super-bowl-xxxvi-spygate-rams-patriots-belichick-faulk
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/kurt-warner-suspicious-patriots-deflategate-article-1.2094128
http://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=3227592
http://ramblinfan.com/2014/01/30/super-bowl-approaches-spy-gate-still-haunts-rams/
http://da.radio.cbssports.com/2015/01/30/isaac-bruce-pats-being-repeat-offenders-makes-you-question-them-now/
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/report-panicked-goodell-asked-martz-to-approve-spygate-findings/

Kurt Warner doesn't want to dwell on it. Marshall Faulk does. Faulk said in the past that he'll never get over being cheated. Who are you to tell him to move on?

Marshall Faulk is the only guy making a big stink out of it still (and I respect him so much for that), but look at all the links I gave you. People can act like Faulk is a conspiracy theorist, but he's not the only Ram to feel like something questionable went down.

And then there's this:
http://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=5855075

"Wait a minute, jrry32, you're telling me that the son of Patriots OL Coach, Dante Scarnecchia, got caught illegally filming the 49ers walkthrough while working for McDaniels?"

Yep.

"Wait, did he work for the Patriots video department?"

Yep.

"Was he working for them in 2001?"

Yep. He worked for them from 2001 to 2004.
_________________


Last edited by jrry32 on Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:21 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Starless


Joined: 05 Jan 2015
Posts: 11154
Location: Ant-Baby Machete Squad
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:

Marshall knows more of the facts than any other person in the media (except Warner).
Clearly he doesn't, since the claim he falls back on the most often comes from a report that was later retracted.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 67841
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Starless wrote:
jrry32 wrote:

Marshall knows more of the facts than any other person in the media (except Warner).
Clearly he doesn't, since the claim he falls back on the most often comes from a report that was later retracted.


http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/marshall-faulk-brings-spygate-ll-never-over-being-182812366--nfl.html
Quote:
Faulk added more fuel to the old controversy by telling Curran that the Patriots were ready for plays that the Rams had never run in the red zone before – plays Faulk said were only practiced at that walk-through.

"Any time that I was offset, I was always stationary," Faulk told ComcastSportsnet. "And we had (created) motioning in the backfield at the same depth on the other side of the field. And they created a check for it. It's just little things like that.
"It's either the best coaching in the world when you come up with situations that you had never seen before. Or you'd seen it and knew what to do."


Clearly, he does. Maybe you can tell us about the plays that the Rams installed during that walkthrough, how the Patriots reacted on the field that day to the plays, and whether that seemed fishy. Oh right, you can't. Marshall Faulk can. Kurt Warner can. Isaac Bruce can. Torry Holt can. Mike Martz can.

And looky there, all of them think something fishy went down. And then there's the fact that your former employee filmed an opposing team's walkthrough a few years after Spygate. A former employee who worked for the team's video department in 2001.

You can treat Faulk like a conspiracy theorist, but it's absolutely telling how many Rams support him. They know far more than you ever will about what went down that day. And they know, like any logical person, that you only destroy evidence in the manner that Goodell did when you have something to hide.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Starless


Joined: 05 Jan 2015
Posts: 11154
Location: Ant-Baby Machete Squad
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"It's either the best coaching in the world when you come up with situations that you had never seen before. Or you'd seen it and knew what to do."




The whole basis of Faulk's claims (other than his own paranoia) is the story, which originated in the Boston Herald, that Matt Walsh, the ex-Pats videotape assistant possessed a tape of the walkthrough. Walsh handed over all the Spygate tapes he had in February of '08. He himself said there was no walkthrough tape. The Herald had to retract their story and apologize to the team. Case closed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/sports/football/08nfl.html?_r=3&ref=sports&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Quote:
Clearly, he does. Maybe you can tell us about the plays that the Rams installed during that walkthrough, how the Patriots reacted on the field that day to the plays, and whether that seemed fishy. Oh right, you can't. Marshall Faulk can. Kurt Warner can. Isaac Bruce can. Torry Holt can. Mike Martz can.


Oh, I don't know, maybe the fact that a 14½-point underdog beat him thanks largely to their own mistakes (a fumble near the end of the first half set up the Pats' only offensive TD and Kurt Warner's pick-six accounted for their other TD) has a way of wounding a guy's pride and in some cases sending him into a spiral of denial and blaming others for those mistakes. Rolling Eyes

Then again, if you can prove definitively that the Rams did things in that game that they hadn't done before, maybe you'd have something... it wouldn't be an especially strong case, but I'd be willing to hear you out. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 67841
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Starless wrote:
Quote:
"It's either the best coaching in the world when you come up with situations that you had never seen before. Or you'd seen it and knew what to do."




The whole basis of Faulk's claims (other than his own paranoia) is the story, which originated in the Boston Herald, that Matt Walsh, the ex-Pats videotape assistant possessed a tape of the walkthrough. Walsh handed over all the Spygate tapes he had in February of '08. He himself said there was no walkthrough tape. The Herald had to retract their story and apologize to the team. Case closed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/sports/football/08nfl.html?_r=3&ref=sports&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


I see a pretty clear basis for Faulk's claim above that wasn't him repeating Walsh's story. Case opened.

Quote:
Oh, I don't know, maybe the fact that a 14½-point underdog beat him thanks largely to their own mistakes (a fumble near the end of the first half set up the Pats' only offensive TD and Kurt Warner's pick-six accounted for their other TD) has a way of wounding a guy's pride and in some cases sending him into a spiral of denial and blaming others for those mistakes. Rolling Eyes


Except Faulk isn't the only guy questioning it. And Mike Martz's comments only add more to the story.

Quote:
Then again, if you can prove definitively that the Rams did things in that game that they hadn't done before, maybe you'd have something... it wouldn't be an especially strong case, but I'd be willing to hear you out. Laughing


I have. Read above. Unless you're going to attempt to claim that Marshall Faulk doesn't know what he's talking about. Laughing

Who wouldn't doubt a HOF HB who is considered one of the most intelligent skill players in NFL history? Clearly, you know more than he does.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Starless


Joined: 05 Jan 2015
Posts: 11154
Location: Ant-Baby Machete Squad
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What exactly do Martz's comments add? It's just one more unsubstantiated claim.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 67841
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Starless wrote:
What exactly do Martz's comments add? It's just one more unsubstantiated claim.


He substantiated it himself. Goodell told him to do it. It's not a third party reporting on their interactions. It's Martz saying pointblank that Goodell told him to cover for the NFL. Laughing
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Starless


Joined: 05 Jan 2015
Posts: 11154
Location: Ant-Baby Machete Squad
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
Starless wrote:
What exactly do Martz's comments add? It's just one more unsubstantiated claim.


He substantiated it himself. Goodell told him to do it. It's not a third party reporting on their interactions. It's Martz saying pointblank that Goodell told him to cover for the NFL. Laughing
You're reading a whole lot of dubious subtext into that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
l3lind golfer


Most Valuable Poster (6th Ballot)

Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 52667
Location: California
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WHERE IS THE PROOF. I don't care what a bunch of dudes on a losing team have to say. When you accuse someone of cheating in a situation there needs to be proof of it.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BStanRamFan


Joined: 10 Aug 2016
Posts: 221
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't have any substantial evidence other than I view Marshall Faulk is a very reasonable, pragmatic person. I see that in his commentating (although sometimes he picks the Rams when we know theyre going to get smoked). So if he is still walking around and believes in his heart that he was cheated, I feel there must be some substance to his convictions. He never came across as a whiner, cry-baby, sore loser. If he feels it's true, he's got my support.

Now when you add in the fact that NE has been accused of cheating in several other instances, it just adds further fuel to the fire.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
l3lind golfer


Most Valuable Poster (6th Ballot)

Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 52667
Location: California
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yea they were accused of cheating vs the Colts in a game where they blew the Colts out of the water. Two weeks later they play in the Superbowl (and you know 100% those footballs were constantly monitored) and beat Seattle. Tom Brady gets suspended 4 games this year and he comes back and leads them to another Superbowl.

This team just keeps winning no matter what they get accused of. They just continue to win and are the most impressive dynasty in the history of this sport, IMO.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ctp2124


Joined: 15 Jan 2011
Posts: 1673
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

l3lind golfer wrote:
Yea they were accused of cheating vs the Colts in a game where they blew the Colts out of the water. Two weeks later they play in the Superbowl (and you know 100% those footballs were constantly monitored) and beat Seattle. Tom Brady gets suspended 4 games this year and he comes back and leads them to another Superbowl.

This team just keeps winning no matter what they get accused of.
They just continue to win and are the most impressive dynasty in the history of this sport, IMO.


Proving you can win while not cheating doesn't prove you have never cheated before.

The Patriots have been fined, suspended, and docked draft picks for Spygate/Deflategate. At the very least, they were guilty of filming the Jets. BB even admitted to that wrongdoing. People can choose to believe, particulary with Spygate, how much of an advantage it gave the Pats. I don't ever think about it nor do I think that is why they beat us in the SB. But it is foolish to think that all their success dismisses scandals because 'they would have won anyway'.
_________________

Props to mike23md

YAWK YAWK YAWK YaWK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 67841
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

l3lind golfer wrote:
WHERE IS THE PROOF. I don't care what a bunch of dudes on a losing team have to say. When you accuse someone of cheating in a situation there needs to be proof of it.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/sports/football/16spy.html

IT WAS DESTROYED. Laughing

From the article:
Quote:
The tapes arrived sometime between Sept. 16, when Goodell said he had yet to receive them, and Sept. 20, when the N.F.L. announced all material from the investigation had been destroyed “to ensure a level playing field.” The league has not addressed the tapes since.


The NFL had the tapes for FOUR DAYS before it destroyed them.

If that doesn't scream cover-up, I don't know what does.

In the law, there is a concept called spoliation of evidence. One example of what qualifies as spoliation of evidence is purposefully destroying evidence. If you do that, you will often receive the "spoliation inference" as punishment. Basically, that means you're going to lose the case. Basically, the spoliation inference entails the judge telling the jury to presume that the evidence you destroyed was damaging for your case.

If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. People don't intentionally destroy evidence that either helps them or says exactly what they claim it does. If the evidence was exactly what Goodell claimed it to be, he had no reason to destroy it in such a swift manner.

His actions wreak of a cover-up. And ask yourself what would be so damaging to force Goodell to act in such a swift manner to dispose of the evidence. Evidence making you question the legitimacy of at least one Super Bowl title would certainly qualify as that damaging.

Even going beyond that, we do have further evidence. We have Faulk's testimony that the Patriots created checks for plays the Rams did not run before in live game situations but did run in the walkthrough. We have Mike Martz's testimony that Roger Goodell begged him to back the NFL because of how damaging Spygate was.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Los Angeles Rams All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group