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

Tony Dungy admits to stealing signals
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Thomas5737


Joined: 23 Dec 2009
Posts: 14668
Location: West Virginia Occupation: Browns LT
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good debate going here. I prefer Peyton Manning but I can see why most would choose Tom Brady.
_________________
Bonanza23 wrote:
1st off Thomas is a man!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jrry32


Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 67468
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lancerman wrote:
And again that WHOLE INCIDENT was BEFORE Goodell became the Commissioner. The fact that you can't even understand or admit that shows how unbelievably ill informed you are.


Goodell punished them for filming that went back to 2000, you ignoramus.

Faulk specifically referred to Goodell's actions during the Spygate investigation.

Quote:
Second off "lawyer", don't lecture me on spoliation of evidence. I'm well aware of that concept. You aren't as smart as you think you are.

The evidence was destroyed after the NFL investigation and after the NFL wen through it's process and made a ruling and handed down a punishment. That's not spoliation of evidence.


I am well aware it's not spoliation of evidence.(because the NFL wasn't a party, it was the adjudicator) I used it because it's an analogous legal concept that shows that a presumption against the person destroying the evidence is logical.

Are you really this dense?

Quote:
And just to give you an example since you lack the real world practical application of the concepts you are throwing out there to try to pass off your faux intelligence:

A kid I went to college with got arrested for purchasing alcohol for younger members of his college class who weren't of age. The cops confiscated the alcohol. That was the evidence. Once the matter was resolved, the cops reported they were going to destroy the box of alcohol.They literally destroyed the evidence. Why would they do that? Because the matter was resolved as far as they were concerned. Why was it not spoliation of evidence? Because they went through the process and the matter was resolved.

AS FAR AS THE NFL WAS CONCERNED THE MATTER WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS AND WAS RESOLVED.


Why would they destroy the evidence? Because it was all a matter of public record.

The NFL destroyed the tapes after four days without making them public. The investigation was hasty. The destruction of evidence was hasty. The optics of it were poor. It looked like an organization trying to cover something up.

Quote:
Why would they keep the evidence jrry? Since you are making the allegation that it was misconduct can you provide evidence that the NFL prior to 2007 takes every single bit of evidence in a rule violation dispute and kept it on record? The only thing I can really think of is the Wells report which was a unique scenario. Maybe the Bountygate situation. But show that it is common practice to keep all the evidence in every rule violation. I'd love to see it.


Why would they keep the evidence? They might not.

But if they weren't going to keep the evidence, they would make it public first to prove that it said what they claimed it did. Destroying the evidence after four days without making it public looks like a cover-up. At minimum, you'd expect them to show somebody outside of the NFL and the Patriots who could verify or give some sort of record of what was there. But they didn't even do that.

The NFL has plenty of PR people. They knew what the optics were.

And then there's the fact that the U.S. Senate wanted to later investigate it but could not because the evidence was destroyed. If they had preserved the evidence or made it public, the U.S. Senate could have backed the NFL's version of things.

Now, why wouldn't they want that?

The entire handling of the investigation looked rushed, unprofessional, and fishy.

Quote:
Again see you are taking an action and speculating that there was some nefarious conduct behind it besides the matter being resolved. And you are calling the same organization that you gave gross leeway to during deflategate and saying they were lying to the world and protecting the Patriots.


I didn't give leeway to Goodell. I read the report for myself and saw the evidence. The texts said more than enough to convince any objective, rational person.

Nice try. You're the hypocrite. I exposed you for it back then. You're happy to believe the NFL is benevolent and trustworthy when it benefits you, but when it harms you, they're out to get you and can't be trusted.

Unlike you, I didn't accept what Goodell said as a fact in Deflategate. I looked into the evidence and made my own determination. In fact, in case you forgot, the NFL made the evidence public. Isn't that odd? Why didn't they do that with Spygate?

Obviously, you didn't have an opportunity to evaluate the evidence because the NFL destroyed it rather than making it public. But it begs the question, how can you sit here after Deflategate and tell us to trust the NFL?

Quote:
Now back to your idiotic statement about the Rams defensive plays. Do you honestly think Mike freaking Martz is so smart that he was creating offensive looks that were impossible for defenses to identify and have prior checks on? You


Yes.

Unless you think that NFL teams spend time preparing audibles for plays that their opposition has never run before. In that case, you might want to check the definition for "gullible."

Quote:
Do you how paranoid and delusional that makes you sound? It's ridiculous. That whole post literally made you sound like an insane person.


Right. I'm delusional. Not the guy who thinks he knows more about football than Marshall Faulk.

I know better than to engage with you. You're the worst of the Pats homers on this site.


_________________


Last edited by jrry32 on Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingshomer


Joined: 01 Jan 2009
Posts: 2451
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Welp.

Everyone that want's to call Brady a cheater now has to call Peyton one as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lancerman


Joined: 06 Feb 2011
Posts: 8085
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
lancerman wrote:
And again that WHOLE INCIDENT was BEFORE Goodell became the Commissioner. The fact that you can't even understand or admit that shows how unbelievably ill informed you are.


Goodell punished them for filming that went back to 2000, you ignoramus.

Faulk specifically referred to Goodell's actions during the Spygate investigation.

Quote:
Second off "lawyer", don't lecture me on spoliation of evidence. I'm well aware of that concept. You aren't as smart as you think you are.

The evidence was destroyed after the NFL investigation and after the NFL wen through it's process and made a ruling and handed down a punishment. That's not spoliation of evidence.


I am well aware it's not spoliation of evidence.(because the NFL wasn't a party, it was the adjudicator) I used it because it's an analogous legal concept that shows that a presumption against the person destroying the evidence is logical.

Are you really this dense?

Quote:
And just to give you an example since you lack the real world practical application of the concepts you are throwing out there to try to pass off your faux intelligence:

A kid I went to college with got arrested for purchasing alcohol for younger members of his college class who weren't of age. The cops confiscated the alcohol. That was the evidence. Once the matter was resolved, the cops reported they were going to destroy the box of alcohol.They literally destroyed the evidence. Why would they do that? Because the matter was resolved as far as they were concerned. Why was it not spoliation of evidence? Because they went through the process and the matter was resolved.

AS FAR AS THE NFL WAS CONCERNED THE MATTER WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS AND WAS RESOLVED.


Why would they destroy the evidence? Because it was all a matter of public record.

The NFL destroyed the tapes after four days without making them public. The investigation was hasty. The destruction of evidence was hasty. The optics of it were poor. It looked like an organization trying to cover something up.

Quote:
Why would they keep the evidence jrry? Since you are making the allegation that it was misconduct can you provide evidence that the NFL prior to 2007 takes every single bit of evidence in a rule violation dispute and kept it on record? The only thing I can really think of is the Wells report which was a unique scenario. Maybe the Bountygate situation. But show that it is common practice to keep all the evidence in every rule violation. I'd love to see it.


Why would they keep the evidence? They might not.

But if they weren't going to keep the evidence, they would make it public first to prove that it said what they claimed it did. Destroying the evidence after four days without making it public looks like a cover-up. At minimum, you'd expect them to show somebody outside of the NFL and the Patriots who could verify or give some sort of record of what was there. But they didn't even do that.

The NFL has plenty of PR people. They knew what the optics were.

And then there's the fact that the U.S. Senate wanted to later investigate it but could not because the evidence was destroyed. If they had preserved the evidence or made it public, the U.S. Senate could have backed the NFL's version of things.

Now, why wouldn't they want that?

The entire handling of the investigation looked rushed, unprofessional, and fishy.

Quote:
Again see you are taking an action and speculating that there was some nefarious conduct behind it besides the matter being resolved. And you are calling the same organization that you gave gross leeway to during deflategate and saying they were lying to the world and protecting the Patriots.


I didn't give leeway to Goodell. I read the report for myself and saw the evidence. The texts said more than enough to convince any objective, rational person.

Nice try. You're the hypocrite. I exposed you for it back then. You're happy to believe the NFL is benevolent and trustworthy when it benefits you, but when it harms you, they're out to get you and can't be trusted.

Unlike you, I didn't accept what Goodell said as a fact in Deflategate. I looked into the evidence and made my own determination. In fact, in case you forgot, the NFL made the evidence public. Isn't that odd? Why didn't they do that with Spygate?

Obviously, you didn't have an opportunity to evaluate the evidence because the NFL destroyed it rather than making it public. But it begs the question, how can you sit here after Deflategate and tell us to trust the NFL?

Quote:
Now back to your idiotic statement about the Rams defensive plays. Do you honestly think Mike freaking Martz is so smart that he was creating offensive looks that were impossible for defenses to identify and have prior checks on? You


Yes.

Unless you think that NFL teams spend time preparing audibles for plays that their opposition has never run before. In that case, you might want to check the definition for "gullible."

Quote:
Do you how paranoid and delusional that makes you sound? It's ridiculous. That whole post literally made you sound like an insane person.


Right. I'm delusional. Not the guy who thinks he knows more about football than Marshall Faulk.

I know better than to engage with you. You're the worst of the Pats homers on this site.



Yeah call me a homer when you made a complete fool of yourself all year trying to convince everybody that Goff would be a star when it went completely beyond any reason and facts.

You're right we have no reason to debate. You clearly have shown that you are more willing to twist facts to your opinions to analyze everything and go on a conspiracy theory route.

You aren't as intelligent as you think you are.
_________________
Signature
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Badger75


Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 8462
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No sports organization has scouted, catalogued team preferences and crosstabed them like the Pats. Landry was good at it too. In the 1970s. Wink
_________________
"I have to keep playing so people over 40 will have somebody to root for on Sunday afternoons." George Blanda who played until he was 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lancerman


Joined: 06 Feb 2011
Posts: 8085
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vikingshomer wrote:
Welp.

Everyone that want's to call Brady a cheater now has to call Peyton one as well.


Nobody really even cares about this tbh. It's just funny for Pats fans to rib people who are sweeping this under the table because it's slightly different than how the rules were violated in Spygate even though it's roughly the same thing and yielded the same small advantage.

That's the main issue the Patriots fans always had with these "controversy's" everybody knows this stuff goes on. HOF coaches admit to it. Jerry Rice admits to using stickum.

It just becomes a national story and a giant penalty if the Pats are in the conversation and everybody rushes with their cheater labels.
_________________
Signature
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
m haynes


Joined: 29 Jan 2011
Posts: 1611
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Faulk's a idiot . he made the claim after the Herald bogus report, which was reported on the NETWORKS. 2001 SB, Spy gate 2007 who had the tapes for 6 years. Don't say the Pats, if true they would get rid of them right after the game. godell wasn't comish in 2001, you telling me the NFL had them. Ya what would the other owners say back in 2001. GMAB Faulk moron.

Ps Godell decided to take 2001 tapes and burn them with 2007 SG. OK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lancerman


Joined: 06 Feb 2011
Posts: 8085
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

m haynes wrote:
Faulk's a idiot . he made the claim after the Herald bogus report, which was reported on the NETWORKS. 2001 SB, Spy gate 2007 who had the tapes for 6 years. Don't say the Pats, if true they would get rid of them right after the game. godell wasn't comish in 2001, you telling me the NFL had them. Ya what would the other owners say back in 2001. GMAB Faulk moron.

Ps Godell decided to take 2001 tapes and burn them with 2007 SG. OK


He's uninformed and hellbent on weighing everything against them regardless of if his logic is consistent or how ridiculous it is (Faulk's comments in an interview are more compelling than a reporter retracting and apologizing for a story and the NFL concluding nothing happened). Then he tries to mislead people by throwing out a legal term he thinks nobody knows completely out of it's traditional context anf hoping nobody catches him (or he just doesn't have a grasp on the terms he used, idk).
_________________
Signature
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
m haynes


Joined: 29 Jan 2011
Posts: 1611
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lancerman wrote:
m haynes wrote:
Faulk's a idiot . he made the claim after the Herald bogus report, which was reported on the NETWORKS. 2001 SB, Spy gate 2007 who had the tapes for 6 years. Don't say the Pats, if true they would get rid of them right after the game. godell wasn't comish in 2001, you telling me the NFL had them. Ya what would the other owners say back in 2001. GMAB Faulk moron.

Ps Godell decided to take 2001 tapes and burn them with 2007 SG. OK


He's uninformed and hellbent on weighing everything against them regardless of if his logic is consistent or how ridiculous it is (Faulk's comments in an interview are more compelling than a reporter retracting and apologizing for a story and the NFL concluding nothing happened). Then he tries to mislead people by throwing out a legal term he thinks nobody knows completely out of it's traditional context anf hoping nobody catches him (or he just doesn't have a grasp on the terms he used, idk).
Also, this is a league (owners) that used "probable" to go after one of their super star and destroy his accomplishments. They hate the Pats as well and your telling me they had tapes 6 years and never used them to stop the Pats Dynasty.

I put, taping walk through = murder. Taping signals in the wrong area and BB not caring about Goodell demands = misdemeanor.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PatriotsWin!


Joined: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 21249
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nabbs4u wrote:
PatriotsWin! wrote:
Nabbs4u wrote:
This in no way is similar to Spygate, nice try PatriotsWin! Not unless you're telling me the Colts too were taping teams walk throughs and practices? Don't compare the two.


Spygate wasn't about filming walkthroughs or practices. That never happened, why continue spreading misinformation? It was about taping coaches giving signals on the sideline. Taping and stealing signals was 'fine' but taping from the sidelines was not.


Yes Rodger Goodell was so worried about what You just described as the totality of the situation that he felt the need to destroy the Tapes before the public could view them? Yeah OK!!! Rolling Eyes Patriot fans can't possibly be that naive? I'm not trying to dredge up the past but acknowledging the night and day differences between the two scenarios. Which is numerous.


You're making stuff up, I'm posting facts. Huge difference, I agree.
_________________

Mack on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gillam


Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 3298
Location: UAE
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Remove 1st and a 4th of the patriots.
_________________
O'Doyle Rules wrote:
Quote:
You still missenterepted what I said so you quoting me word for word proves nothing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Nabbs4u


Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Posts: 28944
Location: 1st Ballot Eagles HOF 3x Gold Standard 09' /10 '/11' 2X ENBD/Pick em Winner Kiltman on the Sig
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PatriotsWin! wrote:
Nabbs4u wrote:
PatriotsWin! wrote:
Nabbs4u wrote:
This in no way is similar to Spygate, nice try PatriotsWin! Not unless you're telling me the Colts too were taping teams walk throughs and practices? Don't compare the two.


Spygate wasn't about filming walkthroughs or practices. That never happened, why continue spreading misinformation? It was about taping coaches giving signals on the sideline. Taping and stealing signals was 'fine' but taping from the sidelines was not.


Yes Rodger Goodell was so worried about what You just described as the totality of the situation that he felt the need to destroy the Tapes before the public could view them? Yeah OK!!! Rolling Eyes Patriot fans can't possibly be that naive? I'm not trying to dredge up the past but acknowledging the night and day differences between the two scenarios. Which is numerous.


You're making stuff up, I'm posting facts. Huge difference, I agree.


You can no more Prove it a "fact" they didn't tape walkthroughs and practices then claiming I among others are making things up. That is also a Fact! The Tapes were so Damning to the 3x SB Champs Legacy at that time Goodell felt the need to destroy them. That too is a Undeniable FACT! Sometimes common sense just needs to be used. Whether it meets your agenda or not.
_________________

Bird Watch: TE Zach Ertz: 14Gm/ 106Tgt //78 Rec//812 Yds//4 TD//10.5 Y/R
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
m haynes


Joined: 29 Jan 2011
Posts: 1611
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nabbs4u wrote:
PatriotsWin! wrote:
Nabbs4u wrote:
PatriotsWin! wrote:
Nabbs4u wrote:
This in no way is similar to Spygate, nice try PatriotsWin! Not unless you're telling me the Colts too were taping teams walk throughs and practices? Don't compare the two.


Spygate wasn't about filming walkthroughs or practices. That never happened, why continue spreading misinformation? It was about taping coaches giving signals on the sideline. Taping and stealing signals was 'fine' but taping from the sidelines was not.


Yes Rodger Goodell was so worried about what You just described as the totality of the situation that he felt the need to destroy the Tapes before the public could view them? Yeah OK!!! Rolling Eyes Patriot fans can't possibly be that naive? I'm not trying to dredge up the past but acknowledging the night and day differences between the two scenarios. Which is numerous.


You're making stuff up, I'm posting facts. Huge difference, I agree.


You can no more Prove it a "fact" they didn't tape walkthroughs and practices then claiming I among others are making things up. That is also a Fact! The Tapes were so Damning to the 3x SB Champs Legacy at that time Goodell felt the need to destroy them. That too is a Undeniable FACT! Sometimes common sense just needs to be used. Whether it meets your agenda or not.


Quote:
You can no more Prove it a "fact" they didn't tape walkthroughs
Flip the coin Prove they did and he burnt (walk through) them. Roger "I think I will take the tapes from 2001 and burn them in 2007" Ya right fact, I know its true. I heard that guy on ESPN say so. " Some time common sense just needs to be used". You can turn that coin over too!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lancerman


Joined: 06 Feb 2011
Posts: 8085
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nabbs4u wrote:
PatriotsWin! wrote:
Nabbs4u wrote:
PatriotsWin! wrote:
Nabbs4u wrote:
This in no way is similar to Spygate, nice try PatriotsWin! Not unless you're telling me the Colts too were taping teams walk throughs and practices? Don't compare the two.


Spygate wasn't about filming walkthroughs or practices. That never happened, why continue spreading misinformation? It was about taping coaches giving signals on the sideline. Taping and stealing signals was 'fine' but taping from the sidelines was not.


Yes Rodger Goodell was so worried about what You just described as the totality of the situation that he felt the need to destroy the Tapes before the public could view them? Yeah OK!!! Rolling Eyes Patriot fans can't possibly be that naive? I'm not trying to dredge up the past but acknowledging the night and day differences between the two scenarios. Which is numerous.


You're making stuff up, I'm posting facts. Huge difference, I agree.


You can no more Prove it a "fact" they didn't tape walkthroughs and practices then claiming I among others are making things up. That is also a Fact! The Tapes were so Damning to the 3x SB Champs Legacy at that time Goodell felt the need to destroy them. That too is a Undeniable FACT! Sometimes common sense just needs to be used. Whether it meets your agenda or not.


But you are asking him to prove a negative against your accusation when everybody who did the investigative work said it didn't happen.

That's a massive logic fallacy on your part.

Spygate was about taping signals in the wrong spot on the field. And Goodell destroyed the tapes by Scar in Denver. And Denver hadn't won anything significant since Elway by that point.
_________________
Signature
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BLick12


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 31302
Location: South Jeezy fo sheezy
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I actually sort of agree with Jrry and Nabbs and I think that's a big reason that Goodell went on the ridiculous witch hunt he did with Brady and the Pats around deflategate. Basically, I let you off easy (relatively speaking) with Spygate and now I'm going to nail your arse to the wall for dirtying the NFL's image again with another controversy.

To me, destroying the evidence was an awful decision by the NFL league office. But it was quite possibly done to prevent a gigantic uproar if the real facts got out. Obviously, that's speculation, but the NFL opened itself for that by destroying the evidence.
_________________

Bird Watch: Nolan Carroll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
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