Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 54
  1. #21
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,468

    Re: McKinnie Met with Commish

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "C" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    LOL.
    Right, he only handed Belichick and the Pats a punishment unprecedented in the NFL in severity...

    Hahaha, a $750,000 fine for 7 years of cheating and 3 Super Bowl victories? You think that's a "unprecedented" punishment? Sounds like a wise investment for the Pats... as Matt Walsh said, they'd probably pay it again.

    Please, that was a slap on the wrist... no one was even suspended for a game.
    First of all, unprecedented means that it has no precedent in the NFL, which it did not.
    Second, your conspiracy theories about it helping them win three super bowls are just that - conspiracy theories. Third, there is another thread in which this discussion has been hashed over and over again, no need to drag it into this one.

    (Like how I put my 2 cents in before trying to get the thread back on track? )

    Anyway, back to McKinnie, I still say that 4 games is fair given the relatively small sample of precedent.
    Haha, ok... I guess we'll see. I'd say Matt Walsh had some very interesting things to say in his interviews... not really sure why he'd lie.

    Also, if you really believe that Belichick "Misinterpreted" the rules, I just feel sorry for you. Go back to sleep.
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  2. #22
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: McKinnie Met with Commish

    "C" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "C" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    LOL.
    Right, he only handed Belichick and the Pats a punishment unprecedented in the NFL in severity...

    Hahaha, a $750,000 fine for 7 years of cheating and 3 Super Bowl victories? You think that's a "unprecedented" punishment? Sounds like a wise investment for the Pats... as Matt Walsh said, they'd probably pay it again.

    Please, that was a slap on the wrist... no one was even suspended for a game.
    First of all, unprecedented means that it has no precedent in the NFL, which it did not.
    Second, your conspiracy theories about it helping them win three super bowls are just that - conspiracy theories. Third, there is another thread in which this discussion has been hashed over and over again, no need to drag it into this one.

    (Like how I put my 2 cents in before trying to get the thread back on track? )

    Anyway, back to McKinnie, I still say that 4 games is fair given the relatively small sample of precedent.
    Haha, ok... I guess we'll see. I'd say Matt Walsh had some very interesting things to say in his interviews... not really sure why he'd lie.

    Also, if you really believe that Belichick "Misinterpreted" the rules, I just feel sorry for you. Go back to sleep.
    Dammit, you're not allowed to get the last word - unless you inject something about the actual thread topic.
    Like this:

    Nobody believes that Belickick misinterpreted anything.
    He was 100% in the know that what he was doing was wrong, and he was doing it to obtain a strategic advantage.
    However, the impact of this strategic advantage is not nearly as great as some would like us to believe.
    Suspending Belichick for video taping from the sidelines is akin to divorcing your wife because she ate the last of the cake in the fridge and then lied about it.
    Was it right? NO.
    Was it so bad that it warranted a moe severe punishment? NO.

    But back to McKinnie, I really don't have much else to add.
    I keep saying that I expect a four game suspension, and nobody seems to want to challenge that.
    I will add that if he gets off without any suspension, then I will lose all faith in Goodell.

    ;D
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  3. #23
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,468

    Re: McKinnie Met with Commish

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    Nobody believes that Belickick misinterpreted anything.
    He was 100% in the know that what he was doing was wrong, and he was doing it to obtain a strategic advantage.
    However, the impact of this strategic advantage is not nearly as great as some would like us to believe.
    Suspending Belichick for video taping from the sidelines is akin to divorcing your wife because she ate the last of the cake in the fridge and then lied about it.
    Was it right? NO.
    Was it so bad that it warranted a moe severe punishment? NO.
    Actually, if you were to watch the interview with Matt Walsh, he explains the process in MUCH more detail... written "excuses" to tell if he were to ever get caught videotaping... how they RELAYED THE INFORMATION DOWN TO THE COACHES SO THEY COULD MAKE IN GAME ADJUSTMENTS... so, you can get mad at me as you want, but I think I'll believe someone who is in 4 team photos with Bill Belichick over you... sorry Nodak.
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  4. #24
    cajunvike's Avatar
    cajunvike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    32,063

    Re: McKinnie Met with Commish

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "C" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "C" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    LOL.
    Right, he only handed Belichick and the Pats a punishment unprecedented in the NFL in severity...

    Hahaha, a $750,000 fine for 7 years of cheating and 3 Super Bowl victories? You think that's a "unprecedented" punishment? Sounds like a wise investment for the Pats... as Matt Walsh said, they'd probably pay it again.

    Please, that was a slap on the wrist... no one was even suspended for a game.
    First of all, unprecedented means that it has no precedent in the NFL, which it did not.
    Second, your conspiracy theories about it helping them win three super bowls are just that - conspiracy theories. Third, there is another thread in which this discussion has been hashed over and over again, no need to drag it into this one.

    (Like how I put my 2 cents in before trying to get the thread back on track? )

    Anyway, back to McKinnie, I still say that 4 games is fair given the relatively small sample of precedent.
    Haha, ok... I guess we'll see. I'd say Matt Walsh had some very interesting things to say in his interviews... not really sure why he'd lie.

    Also, if you really believe that Belichick "Misinterpreted" the rules, I just feel sorry for you. Go back to sleep.
    Dammit, you're not allowed to get the last word - unless you inject something about the actual thread topic.
    Like this:

    Nobody believes that Belickick misinterpreted anything.
    He was 100% in the know that what he was doing was wrong, and he was doing it to obtain a strategic advantage.
    However, the impact of this strategic advantage is not nearly as great as some would like us to believe.
    Suspending Belichick for video taping from the sidelines is akin to divorcing your wife because she ate the last of the cake in the fridge and then lied about it.
    Was it right? NO.
    Was it so bad that it warranted a moe severe punishment? NO.

    But back to McKinnie, I really don't have much else to add.
    I keep saying that I expect a four game suspension, and nobody seems to want to challenge that.
    I will add that if he gets off without any suspension, then I will lose all faith in Goodell.

    ;D
    I've already lost all faith in Goodell...so I vote for the NO game suspension for McKinnie.
    BANNED OR DEAD...I'LL TAKE EITHER ONE

  5. #25
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: McKinnie Met with Commish

    "C" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    Nobody believes that Belickick misinterpreted anything.
    He was 100% in the know that what he was doing was wrong, and he was doing it to obtain a strategic advantage.
    However, the impact of this strategic advantage is not nearly as great as some would like us to believe.
    Suspending Belichick for video taping from the sidelines is akin to divorcing your wife because she ate the last of the cake in the fridge and then lied about it.
    Was it right? NO.
    Was it so bad that it warranted a moe severe punishment? NO.
    Actually, if you were to watch the interview with Matt Walsh, he explains the process in MUCH more detail... written "excuses" to tell if he were to ever get caught videotaping... how they RELAYED THE INFORMATION DOWN TO THE COACHES SO THEY COULD MAKE IN GAME ADJUSTMENTS... so, you can get mad at me as you want, but I think I'll believe someone who is in 4 team photos with Bill Belichick over you... sorry Nodak.
    Oh BS.
    Walsh is attention whoring.
    I read the interviews, and the only time he talks about passing information down to the coordinators was when he supposedly saw another cameraman from a different team doing the same thing as him.
    Please provide me a single link where he said anything about relaying the information down to the coaches so they could make in game adjustments.
    I never saw a single one.
    And anything he saw that he relayed could be done without video tapes anyway - it isn't illegal to have someone in that exact spot with binoculars.

    The team photos don't mean squat.
    Walsh was a low ranking video tech.
    He is about as qualified as I am to analyze defensive signals on the fly or to advise NFL coaches and coordinators on in game adjustments.

    Stipulating that Walsh is the reason that the Pats have posted winning records, or that it had anything to do with their super bowl wins, actually hurts your case more than it helps.
    It exposes your predisposition to the situation, and shows that you cannot look at it objectively.
    The realistic way to look at it is that it offered a slight advantage, more so in the long term against teams they played repeatedly than any tame the face only once.
    Anything beyond that is simply grasping.
    It may be true, but the odds are stacked against it.


    Ever notice that none of the other owners or coaches complained about the punishment (or lack thereof).
    Maybe that's because they understand that actual significance (or lack thereof) of the act itself.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  6. #26
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,468

    Re: McKinnie Met with Commish

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "C" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    Nobody believes that Belickick misinterpreted anything.
    He was 100% in the know that what he was doing was wrong, and he was doing it to obtain a strategic advantage.
    However, the impact of this strategic advantage is not nearly as great as some would like us to believe.
    Suspending Belichick for video taping from the sidelines is akin to divorcing your wife because she ate the last of the cake in the fridge and then lied about it.
    Was it right? NO.
    Was it so bad that it warranted a moe severe punishment? NO.
    Actually, if you were to watch the interview with Matt Walsh, he explains the process in MUCH more detail... written "excuses" to tell if he were to ever get caught videotaping... how they RELAYED THE INFORMATION DOWN TO THE COACHES SO THEY COULD MAKE IN GAME ADJUSTMENTS... so, you can get mad at me as you want, but I think I'll believe someone who is in 4 team photos with Bill Belichick over you... sorry Nodak.
    Oh BS.
    Walsh is attention whoring.
    I read the interviews, and the only time he talks about passing information down to the coordinators was when he supposedly saw another cameraman from a different team doing the same thing as him.
    Please provide me a single link where he said anything about relaying the information down to the coaches so they could make in game adjustments.
    I never saw a single one.
    And anything he saw that he relayed could be done without video tapes anyway - it isn't illegal to have someone in that exact spot with binoculars.

    The team photos don't mean squat.
    Walsh was a low ranking video tech.
    He is about as qualified as I am to analyze defensive signals on the fly or to advise NFL coaches and coordinators on in game adjustments.

    Stipulating that Walsh is the reason that the Pats have posted winning records, or that it had anything to do with their super bowl wins, actually hurts your case more than it helps.
    It exposes your predisposition to the situation, and shows that you cannot look at it objectively.
    The realistic way to look at it is that it offered a slight advantage, more so in the long term against teams they played repeatedly than any tame the face only once.
    Anything beyond that is simply grasping.
    It may be true, but the odds are stacked against it.


    Ever notice that none of the other owners or coaches complained about the punishment (or lack thereof).
    Maybe that's because they understand that actual significance (or lack thereof) of the act itself.
    Haha, ok... cheating to gain a competitive advantage is ok... gotcha. I mean, hell... everyone does it. Right?

    Hmmm....

    You may have read the interview (however, by the sound of it.... I have a feeling your preconceived notions about what happened are blocking you from making unbiased conclusions regarding this) but I suggest watching the interview. Read Walsh's expressions and his recounts of what happened. You might be surprised.

    All respect, I like you Nodak... but you look like a fool when you have to come up with so many reasons to defend cheating. Reasons like, "I'm tired of hearing about this" and "Everyone cheats" are truly... truly... pathetic reasons for letting this blatant disregard for the rules go, pretty much, unchecked.

    Your words exactly:
    it offered a slight advantage
    [size=10pt]THAT'S CHEATING!!!![/size]
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  7. #27
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,468

    Re: McKinnie Met with Commish

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    And anything he saw that he relayed could be done without video tapes anyway - it isn't illegal to have someone in that exact spot with binoculars.
    That's terrific... but they used video-cameras.
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  8. #28
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,468

    Re: McKinnie Met with Commish

    McKinnie... no suspension
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  9. #29
    dcboardr41 is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,051

    Re: McKinnie Met with Commish

    this thread isnt off topic at all

    Pissing on the Pack since 08'

  10. #30
    Mr Anderson's Avatar
    Mr Anderson is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,692

    Re: McKinnie Met with Commish

    It is literally impossible to analyze signals and gain an advantage in the same game, it would take Rain Man at least quarter, and that's only if Rain Man knows what happens on the field after the signal itself is called.

    How to gain an advantage by filming defensive signals in game: by Mr Anderson.
    1) Have Matt Walsh, or whoever your 3rd video assistant is, film the defensive coach sending in the signals.
    2) Analyze each signal and figure out what signal means what.(this will take at least a quarter or two)
    3) Play the game.




    a) Send your offense out on the field with a play.




    b) Use your acquired defensive signals to determine the defense called, which will most definitely change before the ball is snapped due to the offensive formation.








    1) Send the information to the offensive coordinator.








    2) Have the offensive coordinator to the head coach.(1 and 2 can be reversed based on radio comm to QB)








    3) Have the head coach send the information to the quarterback on the field.








    4) Have the quarterback audible in response to the information received.
    c) Try not to have delay of game called on you.

    In practices and walkthroughs, generally, it's all about offense. Defense is hard to walk through with.

    Defense is reactionary.

    You can gameplan for offense, but I dare any defensive coordinator to script his first 15 defensive plays, and not get scored on, probably more than once.


    I've been saying this all along throughout spygate they are not , which would not even be a story anymore if it wasn't for ESPN and Arlen Specter, they like the ratings they get from this story.

    The Patriots gained nothing from these films. Even if they did, it wasn't enough to win games for them. They were the superior team, and still are. All of this Patriot hate has nothing behind it. It's like why people hate(d) the Yankees, because they win(won) all the time.

    Using the signals they filmed would be about as affective as throwing darts at a board with a list of defensive formations on it and basing the offense on that.
    [hr]

    Now, back to McKinnie.


Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. FIRE THE COMMISH
    By marstc09 in forum Fantasy Football Talk
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-20-2010, 05:22 PM
  2. New Commish: Aug. 18
    By Prophet in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-06-2006, 12:53 PM
  3. New NFL commish will get to know us (Minnesota)
    By COJOMAY in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-27-2006, 05:27 AM
  4. New NFL commish will get to know us
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-26-2006, 04:37 PM
  5. Favorite Commish
    By snowinapril in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-31-2005, 07:01 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •