Patriots and the Media

MalzoneExpress

Thanks, gramps.
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
867
Cambridge, MA
Norm Siebern said:
New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick is a grumpy genius. He's Gru, the super villain from "Despicable Me." And what to make of Broncos coach John Fox? He's your goofy uncle, with the easiest voice to mock since Foghorn Leghorn.But, truth be told, what does Belichick have as a head coach that Fox does not other than three Super Bowl rings, one Tom Brady and a $500,000 fine for cheating?
 
 
This is not only moronic, but incorrect. Belichick has five Super Bowl rings, not three you dumb fuck.
 
Not to defend the dumb fuck, but he did limit his comments to "as a head coach". In which case, three is the correct answer. BB's two other rings came as an Assistant under Parcels.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Dogman2 said:
 
Not picking on you at all but I think this is common knowledge.
 
Not to non-NE fans, it isn't.  Tell that to a random NFL fan and they will think you are full of shit.  Their first question (to bring this all together) is typically: "Then why did they get punished so harshly if it was something other teams did?  That doesn't make sense.  There must be more to it."  From there, you have to get into Goodell being a tough guy, and Belichick being an un-remorseful dick to the league, etc... and if you aren't careful you just sound like a zealot.
 
It's a really hard thing to convince people of, because the truth of the matter is far more convoluted than the simple, faux "Occam's Razor" explanation that the Patriots really were doing something horrible.   The conspiracy theories make more sense than the truth unless you know the entire story, and not just the 50% of it that the media reported.  And that's all on Goodell, and it fucking sucks.  I don't think it will ever be understood by the rank and file NFL fan/commentator/media exactly what the Patriots did in relation to the rest of the league, and what they were being punished for.  
 
It really bears a lot of the hallmarks of a viscous smear campaign; trump up some small transgression, plaster the blown-up version all over the news, then when asked about it print a tiny retraction/clarification on page 9 of the Saturday edition 3 months later.  
 
EDIT: I mean, honestly, if Goodell had any fucking credibility or honor, he'd fucking apologize to the Patriots and their fans for being overzealous.  
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Is your criticism the toughness of the sanction or the burning of the tapes, or both?
 
Because if I send a team a memo saying "stop doing this" and the team does it anyway after receiving the memo, I have no problem with the sanction.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,767
Hartford, CT
Right.
 
And, for most of the people who pitch this narrative, it wasn't exactly difficult to convince them that the most nefarious, far-reaching scenario of the Pats' practices imaginable was true.  I have noticed that if you really talk to - not yell at - some of the more self-aware individuals within this group, that they'll eventually betray that (1) they don't really believe all of it and (2) their jealousy/hatred of the Pats plays a not-so-insignificant role in it.
 
It's a comforting thought to them as fans, in essence.  They can't find such comfort in payroll arguments, since the league has a salary cap, and so on; they can't otherwise reconcile the NFL's "parity" narrative with the Patriots' success.  This is all another way of saying that people have to take an active role in their own deception.
 
Of course, some of them DO believe it, which means that it may as well be the truth to them.  They're idiots, and we should not treat with idiots, yes?
 
EDIT - DC is also right re: the penalty.  I personally thought it was absurdly harsh and counterproductive (for the league, not the Patriots - Goodell blew it WAY out of proportion as an opening salvo against defiance, and I think this explains why he then destroyed the tapes), but Belichick got caught.  His justification for parsing the memo in light of the league bylaws was too lawyerly even for me.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
dcmissle said:
Is your criticism the toughness of the sanction or the burning of the tapes, or both?
 
Because if I send a team a memo saying "stop doing this" and the team does it anyway after receiving the memo, I have no problem with the sanction.
 
My problem is A) the ridiculous penalty of a first round draft pick, plus a fine; and B) for being less-than-forthcoming about what, exactly, the Patriots were being punished for.
 
It was never explained that they weren't being punished for taping signals, or for "cheating", but because they violated a league-wide memo about where the taping could occur. 
 
Goodell should have come out at least once and said "There's been a lot of accusations being thrown around regarding the Patriots and the reason for my sanctions, let me be clear, they are not being punished for taping per se, but rather for taping in an unauthorized area.  Had they been taping in the press box, this would not have been a violation."
 

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Moderator
SoSH Member
Mar 19, 2004
15,177
Missoula, MT
drleather2001 said:
 
Not to non-NE fans, it isn't.  Tell that to a random NFL fan and they will think you are full of shit.  Their first question (to bring this all together) is typically: "Then why did they get punished so harshly if it was something other teams did?  That doesn't make sense.  There must be more to it."  From there, you have to get into Goodell being a tough guy, and Belichick being an un-remorseful dick to the league, etc... and if you aren't careful you just sound like a zealot.
 
It's a really hard thing to convince people of, because the truth of the matter is far more convoluted than the simple, faux "Occam's Razor" explanation that the Patriots really were doing something horrible.   The conspiracy theories make more sense than the truth unless you know the entire story, and not just the 50% of it that the media reported.  And that's all on Goodell, and it fucking sucks.  I don't think it will ever be understood by the rank and file NFL fan/commentator/media exactly what the Patriots did in relation to the rest of the league, and what they were being punished for.  
 
It really bears a lot of the hallmarks of a viscous smear campaign; trump up some small transgression, plaster the blown-up version all over the news, then when asked about it print a tiny retraction/clarification on page 9 of the Saturday edition 3 months later.  
 
EDIT: I mean, honestly, if Goodell had any fucking credibility or honor, he'd fucking apologize to the Patriots and their fans for being overzealous.  
 
 
Oh, I agree. I meant on this site it is common knowledge.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
drleather2001 said:
 
My problem is A) the ridiculous penalty of a first round draft pick, plus a fine; and B) for being less-than-forthcoming about what, exactly, the Patriots were being punished for.
 
It was never explained that they weren't being punished for taping signals, or for "cheating", but because they violated a league-wide memo about where the taping could occur. 
 
Goodell should have come out at least once and said "There's been a lot of accusations being thrown around regarding the Patriots and the reason for my sanctions, let me be clear, they are not being punished for taping per se, but rather for taping in an unauthorized area.  Had they been taping in the press box, this would not have been a violation."
 
I hear you, but when this League tells you not to do something, you are better off just not doing it rather than concocting legalistic explanations why you can.  Since then, this League has dealt equally harshly with owners who don't toe the line. 
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
dcmissle said:
 
I hear you, but when this League tells you not to do something, you are better off just not doing it rather than concocting legalistic explanations why you can.  Since then, this League has dealt equally harshly with owners who don't toe the line. 
 
The punishment was draconian, period.   Additionally, what the league did afterwards is irrelevant because at the time there was no precedent of Goodell running the NFL like a Turkish prison.   Also, did Harbaugh get fined $500,000 and the 49ers stripped of  a 1st round pick because he was on the field during a touchdown in last week's game?   I thought the league made it clear that this was a no-no after the Tomlin incident.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
Is your criticism the toughness of the sanction or the burning of the tapes, or both?

Because if I send a team a memo saying "stop doing this" and the team does it anyway after receiving the memo, I have no problem with the sanction.


The "WUT WAS ON THE TAPES!?" thing always slays me. Because the same guy who went out of his way to hand out gigantic fined and sanctions and make a spectacle of the issue was obviously part of the cover-up as well.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
I still have trouble believing that Belichick doesn't have copies of the tapes.
 
Including the footage as a DVR insert in his retirement book where he reinvents football would be the drop-the-mike moment in his career.
 
M

MentalDisabldLst

Guest
Reverend said:
I still have trouble believing that Belichick doesn't have copies of the tapes.
 
I think it's far more likely that he has copies than that he doesn't.  BB will be retired at some point and will be thinking more about his legacy then about whether whoever's-the-commissioner-now will sue him for disclosing something that was under NDA.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
MentalDisabldLst said:
 
I think it's far more likely that he has copies than that he doesn't.  BB will be retired at some point and will be thinking more about his legacy then about whether whoever's-the-commissioner-now will sue him for disclosing something that was under NDA.
Copying video takes time, though, and if NFL investigators came through quickly he may not have been able to copy them. Especially since he considered the footage trivial and not that valuable.

The other issue is that the tapes may not be that informative to defeat the conspiracy theory. They won't show that others were doing it too. What he really needs is a few coaches like Cowher on tape saying "yes we all did this, it was not a competitive advantage.". Belichick can edit into a montage that he releases with his book.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,095
I can't imagine there's anything on those tapes that is at all relevant.  Signals from 8 years ago are not useful, especially with the advent of the green dot.  It's still questionable how valuable the original tapes really were.  
 
Unfortunately, Spygate will never truly die; the genie was irreversibly popped from the bottle once Mangini reported it.  Goodell could have turned Belichick into Pete Rose and Brady into Shoeless Joe and vacated all Patriots victories from the beginning of the AFL and some mediots would still claim the Patriots got off easy.  Tomase's hatchet job, however, definitely gave the whole "tainted" nonsense more life than it ever should have had.
 
However, the folks that continue to bring up Spygate are mostly irrelevant.  Fans of other teams still bring it up, but some of that is just typical fan reaction to a winning team.  
 

bradmahn

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
591
It's funny because you can throw asterisks up on the other Super Bowl winning teams, too, for circumventing the salary cap during their championship seasons.
 
And I bet Jamie Ann Naughright disagrees with the Douchey Quarterback row.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
Here are some media picks from both local and nationwide.
 
National
Benigno and Roberts WFAN-AM NYC--both pick Patriots
Greg Cote, Miami Herald--Patriots 31-27
USA Today Football Staff--6 of 7 pick Broncos but all pick a one-score game
CBSSports.com Football Staff--6 of 9 pick the Broncos(La Canfora, Will Brinson, Ryan Wilson pick the Pats)
ESPN Staff--9 of 13 pick the Broncos(Merrill Hoge, Adam Schefter, Mike Ditka, and Cris Carter pick the Pats)
Dave Blezow, NY Post--Patriots 27-24
Mike Florio--Patriots 30-27(OT)
Pete Schrager, Fox--Patriots 33-27
 
 
 
Local
Gresh and Zo--Gresh picks the Broncos while Zo is on the Pats.
Felger and Mazz--both pick the Patriots.  Mazz was waffling as usual.
Zuri Berry, Boston Globe--Patriots
 
 

CJM

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 2, 2009
1,124
Oklahoma
If you dislike Tom Brady because of his high fives, you have the sense of humor of a zucchini.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
this was on ESPN early today




Yeah, well I'm sick of all the fighting over the gaza strip, buddy.
 
M

MentalDisabldLst

Guest
You know, is he an effete, uggs-wearing model, or is he a FOOTBALL PLAYER WHO PLAYS FOOTBALL?
 
People need to make a decision on the big things in life.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,463
Somewhere
drleather2001 said:
 
Not to non-NE fans, it isn't.  
 
Who gives a fuck? Sports fandom is not rational. The Patriots are the modern equivalent of the 90's Cowboys. People are going to make up shit to hate on them if they need to.
 
 
 
You know, is he an effete, uggs-wearing model, or is he a FOOTBALL PLAYER WHO PLAYS FOOTBALL?
 
Exactly. This is what bugs me more than any generic anti-Patriots fandom, which is predictable. The subtext of a lot of the anti-Brady stuff is that he's a faggy (SPAM filter), dontchaknow?
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,463
Somewhere
Ralphwiggum said:
Subtext? Have you ever read TGG.com. It ain't that subtle.
 
Why would I do something like that? I encounter enough stupidity in the world without willingly diving into it.
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,694
Right..."identity issues" is pretty explicitly homophobic, right? Or am I missing some context?
 

koufax32

He'll cry if he wants to...
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2006
9,092
Duval
Tony C said:
Right..."identity issues" is pretty explicitly homophobic, right? Or am I missing some context?
I think it's just the "are you a football player or a celebrity who happens to play football" thing.
 

CJM

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 2, 2009
1,124
Oklahoma
Plus the question mark at the end of "good looking" is like the media-acceptable version of "no homo".

EDIT: unless Israel is just exceedingly choosy with its men.