Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

    Speaking of the AFC wildcard teams, which do you guys think is most likely to make the leap into the elite this year? None of the ones that Jay listed really scare me. Maybe the Broncos/Steelers. I think the Ravens might fall from the elite, too.
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

    Comment


    • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

      With Ray Lewis and Jonathan Ogden possibly out for the year, I would say that the Ravens have the real chance of slipping down this year. McNair is put together with modelling glue and paper clips at this point and their receiving corps is mediocre. I think Tennessee, Jacksonville and even Houston, yes Houston, has a chance of jumping up, although I would have to be shown that their O-line is significantly better than in previous years. Their defense could be very good.

      Comment


      • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

        Originally posted by Knucklehead Warrior View Post
        Although it's likely the Jets would have been stomped anyway, apparently Belichik still felt uncomfortable enough to cheat anyway. Not serving a suspension is just a joke IMO.

        As to not forfeiting the game, HS and colleges routinely do that when they have an ineligible player. While the Jets don't deserve the first round pick, be sure to ask 'em at wild card time if they wish they had gotten the forfeit.
        That's how I always view these cheating situations when the defenders step in with "it didn't matter." The response is "then why did they do it". Obviously the CHEATER disagrees with the the POV that it didn't matter. Someone might say it had no impact, but NFL genius BB clearly disagrees with that view.

        Just like Sammy and the cork. You can show that it doesn't really help but the point is that the cheater THOUGHT it did and was willing to break the rules and risk punishment to try it. I tend to think the people in the mix have a better feel for what is worth a risk or not, especially a guy as saavy (but immoral) as Bill B.

        Comment


        • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

          Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
          Speaking of the AFC wildcard teams, which do you guys think is most likely to make the leap into the elite this year? None of the ones that Jay listed really scare me. Maybe the Broncos/Steelers. I think the Ravens might fall from the elite, too.
          With injuries, a couple key defections, and a more difficult (first-place) schedule, the Ravens will go back to where they belong: third in the division. Doubt they get the wildcard. There were four AFC teams that missed the playoffs last year (in part due to strength of schedule, especially strength of schedule over the past month of the season) that were better then and now versus last season's AFC wild card teams. Maybe not Jacksonville, not sure what's going on with them.

          I think the Broncos keep slipping from two years ago, but the Patriots are on the rebound and (hopefully) the Steelers have figured out how to not turn the ball over like they did in Games #2-7 last season, so the AFC playoffs are still going to be fiercly competitive and the SuperBowl will be a snoozer. Especially since nobody knows what to expect from San Diego in the playoffs, but everybody expects them to be in the playoffs.

          I think they're about to do what the 15-1 Steelers and 14-2 Colts did - break through to the Super Bowl a year their great regular season performance. Somebody else is going to be the #1 seed this year and taste disappointment. In the AFC, there are a lot of great teams.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            That's how I always view these cheating situations when the defenders step in with "it didn't matter." The response is "then why did they do it".
            The Patriots (and most analysts) are saying that it (taping in THIS game)didn't matter to this game, since the guy taping was stopped in the 1st quarter (score 7-7) before any of the tape he had made of the defensive calls on New England's first offensive possession could have possibly been analyzed.

            Taping the signals obviously did have a potential benefit to New England, but that benefit would be gained either in the rematch or in halftime adjustments after viewing the tape that had been confiscated and was thus not available for review.

            In a nutshell, they were caught cheating but importantly they were caught before they could have made any use of the illegally obtained information.

            If anyone could prove that they taped the Jets illegally last year and used that information in last Sunday's game, then you would have a strong argument for forfeiture. Also, if they guy was caught taping in the 4th quarter after taping the whole game, then there would be a strong argument for that, particularly if there had been some amazing halftime adjustments.
            Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 09-14-2007, 01:54 PM.
            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

            Comment


            • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

              I can't believe that Belichick is still maintaining that he had just a "misinterpretation" of the rules.

              Even though I'm a Pats fan, I kind of wish the commish could give him another slap just for the lameness of his so-called apology.
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                I can't believe that Belichick is still maintaining that he had just a "misinterpretation" of the rules.

                Even though I'm a Pats fan, I kind of wish the commish could give him another slap just for the lameness of his so-called apology.
                Not surprising. Belichick has always been a sore loser.

                Comment


                • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                  Not "always." He's pretty competent as a "sore winner", too.

                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                    THE GAMEFACE: Sandlot Boys
                    by Michael Silver, Yahoo! Sports

                    Just before halftime of last Sunday's game between the New York Jets and New England Patriots at Giants Stadium, a slight, unassuming man in a dark blue Pats polo shirt and khaki shorts was stopped by NFL security officials as he tried to enter the visitors' locker room. Suddenly, a 26-year-old video assistant named Matt Estrella found himself in a scene that might have been lifted from "The Bourne Ultimatum."

                    Suspected of having filmed hand signals from Jets' coaches while standing on that team's sideline, Estrella was interrogated in the bowels of the stadium by Jets and NFL security officials. New Jersey state troopers and FBI agents were also summoned. Mike Tannenbaum, the Jets' general manager, left his seat during the second half and entered the fray, sternly lecturing Estrella about his apparent violation of NFL rules.

                    At one point, somebody brought Estrella a glass of water. He was shaking so hard that he spilled it all over himself. For all we know, that wasn't the only liquid that ended up on Estrella's person during the hour-long grilling.

                    Congratulations, Bill Belichick and Eric Mangini: your petty, childish little feud just made a member of the hired help wet his pants.

                    Now that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has come down hard on Belichick and the Patriots, fining the coach $500,000 and docking the organization $250,000 and a first-round NFL draft pick (if New England makes the playoffs) or second- and third-round choices in 2008, we can all sit back and condemn him for blatantly cheating in the pursuit of a competitive edge. Some people, including a few current members of the Philadelphia Eagles, are even questioning whether the Pats' three Super Bowl victories in the previous six seasons are tainted by this behavior.

                    It's a public relations nightmare for an organization that has been mostly classy and commendable in creating the 21st century's first mini-dynasty, but focusing on the potential advantage New England gained from the stolen signals is missing the point.

                    The people who've truly been cheated are those in the Patriots' organization – and their counterparts among the Mangini-coached Jets – who've been subjected to this consuming and unbecoming sandbox fight between two shrewd yet self-absorbed coaches.

                    If you don't think Sunday's bust was a setup (granted, a well-deserved one), you're not looking closely enough. Belichick ordered an employee to engage in a practice that Mangini knew all about, as it had been commonplace during his time as Belichick's defensive coordinator and defensive backs coach in New England. Anyone with a brain, let alone a brainiac like Belichick, would realize that videotaping an opponent's coaches in that particular context was a disaster waiting to happen.

                    Arrogantly and blatantly, Belichick did it anyway, operating under the Clintonesque rationale that because he wasn't breaking down opposing coaches' signals until after the completion of the game in question, he wasn't violating any rules. I did not view tape from that camera (until later, when I used it for future signal-stealing reference.) So Slick Billy was there for the taking, and Mangini took down his former mentor, and hard, while watching his team suffer a 38-14 defeat.

                    Lest you think this was some random occurrence, consider the incestuous connections between the two organizations:

                    • The Jets' video director, Steve Scarnecchia, formerly worked for the Patriots' video department. Sources say he once had the same duties that landed Estrella in spilled water last Sunday and that Scarnecchia was the one who trained Estrella to clandestinely compile the verboten footage in the first place. Oh, and Scarnecchia's father, Dante, is New England's longtime offensive line coach and has been Belichick's assistant head coach since 2000. Theirs should be a whale of a Thanksgiving dinner.

                    • Another Jets employee, coordinator of college scouting Jay Mandolesi, was an intern in the Patriots' video department in 2002 and '03. Sources say he was fired after a dispute with then offensive coordinator Charlie Weis, possibly over similar video subterfuge.

                    • Tannenbaum and his Patriots counterpart, vice president of player personnel Scott Pioli, were once close friends, having previously worked together in Cleveland and with the Jets. Their relationship is now frayed.

                    How did all of this happen? How did Belichick, probably the greatest defensive strategist of his era and a future Hall of Fame coach, allow one of his prodigies to distract him from the task at hand and make him look like a fool?

                    It goes back to the end of the 2005 season, when the Jets were courting Mangini as a replacement for departed coach Herm Edwards. Belichick, who as the Browns' head coach in '95 had given his fellow Wesleyan alum an assistant's job after having noticed Mangini's work as a public relations intern, had a deep-seated disdain for the Jets' organization dating back to his infamous one-day stint as New York's head coach following Bill Parcells's resignation in January of 2000.

                    Go be a head coach anywhere but there, Belichick told his then-34-year-old defensive coordinator. There'll be other opportunities, and I'll help you get them, Belichick insisted. Just don't take this one.

                    Mangini took the job anyway, and Belichick felt betrayed. When Belichick learned that Mangini, while still serving out his final days with the Patriots, was soliciting Pats coaches, support staff members and players to join him at his new gig, the war was on. Belichick had Mangini's key card access revoked, but not before Mangini, a source says, took a laptop with confidential files stored in its hard drive out of the building. Mangini hired a Pats employee, Erin O'Brien, as his administrative assistant.

                    "He did exactly what Bill would do in the same situation," says one high-ranking league source who knows both men. "Bill raised him too well."

                    Whereas Belichick remained on good terms with ex-assistants Romeo Crennel, who took the Cleveland job, and Nick Saban, who went to the division rival Dolphins, Mangini was persona non grata the second he went to the dreaded Jets. Worse, the Patriots believed, star wideout Deion Branch felt empowered to hold out before the 2006 season because he'd been told by Mangini that the Jets sought his services at the price he desired.

                    Last August, when the Patriots gave Branch a week to negotiate with other teams in pursuit of a possible trade, the Jets were one of two franchises, along with the Seahawks, who made big-money offers. Branch was ultimately traded to Seattle, and the Patriots filed tampering charges against the Jets, who were later cleared by the league of wrongdoing.

                    The bad blood between Belichick and Mangini was evident after each of the two teams' regular season meetings in '06. First, following a 24-17 Pats victory at Giants Stadium, Belichick refused to look at Mangini during their brief handshake at midfield. Two months later, after the Jets pulled off a 17-14 upset at Gillette Stadium, Belichick tried a similar tack before Mangini grabbed his arm and gloated, "Great job!"

                    In January, after the Pats eliminated the Jets from the playoffs by a 37-16 score, Belichick shoved a photographer out of the way to get to Mangini and gave his former assistant what appeared to be a showboating, insincere hug.

                    After the season Mangini hired Brian Daboll, the Pats' wide receivers coach the previous five seasons, as his quarterbacks coach, compelling Belichick's staff to change much of its terminology over the offseason.

                    The gamesmanship continued before the start of the '07 season when Mangini brought in two players, wideout Reche Caldwell and cornerback Artrell Hawkins, who'd just been released by New England, a move some believed was little more than a ploy to pick the players' brains about the upcoming opponent's plays and terminology. The Pats countered by bringing in wideout Tim Dwight, who'd just been released by the Jets.

                    What went down on Sunday, of course, escalated this hissing match to a much darker place. Now that Mangini has made him the object of national embarrassment – and taken a $500,000 chunk out of his bank account – how should Belichick retaliate?

                    Here's how: Stop the madness. Take the high road. Start focusing on what he does best – coming up with brilliant game plans, picking the best players for his system and motivating them to perform at the highest level – and let go of a grudge that is totally beneath a coach of his stature.

                    When I hear about Mangini's paranoia, the secrecy over injuries, the threats of fining players whom he suspects of having given anonymous quotes or whose agents comment publicly about their clients' ailments, I think, "What a bunch of wasted energy." But I also can somewhat forgive him: He's young, and he thinks that by emulating Belichick in these ways he'll be destined for the same kind of towering success. Or perhaps he just got caught up in his "Mangenius" nickname and the guest turn on The Sopranos. Whatever: He's 36, and hopefully he'll grow up in the years to come.

                    Belichick is 55, and even though he's smarter than a fifth grader, he's acting like one. I've been a fan of his work from way, way back, through the post-Browns days when he was considered a classic head coaching washout, and despite his media-repellent ways we've had a good relationship for a long time. I want to see him enjoy the fruits of his labor and the legacy he has earned through hard work and exceptional acumen; I don't want to see him pushing photographers or revoking key cards or, worst of all, getting popped for cheating because he seemingly believed he could do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted, no matter who was watching.

                    Well, Little Brother was watching, and now he's laughing at Belichick because he's gotten so far under his skin.

                    Belichick may think it was the height of hypocrisy, not to mention an ungrateful maneuver by a guy who owes him a career, and he might be right. It doesn't matter.

                    As a very smart coach has often said, it is what it is.

                    And now, gentlemen, it's time to let it go.
                    LINK
                    This is the darkest timeline.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                      Originally posted by Knucklehead Warrior View Post
                      Although it's likely the Jets would have been stomped anyway, apparently Belichik still felt uncomfortable enough to cheat anyway.
                      No, I think Belichick is still pissed they got beat by the Jets in November last year. It will drive him nuts until the day he dies or until The Mangenious isn't their coach anymore.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                        Originally posted by McClintic Sphere View Post
                        With Ray Lewis and Jonathan Ogden possibly out for the year, I would say that the Ravens have the real chance of slipping down this year. McNair is put together with modelling glue and paper clips at this point and their receiving corps is mediocre. I think Tennessee, Jacksonville and even Houston, yes Houston, has a chance of jumping up, although I would have to be shown that their O-line is significantly better than in previous years. Their defense could be very good.
                        I'm not sure where you hard that. Ray Lewis is NOT out for the year.

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                          I'm not sure where you hard that. Ray Lewis is NOT out for the year.
                          i think that is what people were guessing during the broadcast. but he was considering playing this weekend, i don't know if i an official decision has been made regarding his status.
                          This is the darkest timeline.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                            Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                            i think that is what people were guessing during the broadcast. but he was considering playing this weekend, i don't know if i an official decision has been made regarding his status.
                            Not a tear, just a strain. I'd imagine he'll play this weekend, but I wouldn't expect him to be fully healthy for a couple of weeks. Hes a tough guy.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                              Even if Lewis were out, at least he's goes down knowing he'll probably throw as many TD passes this year as McNair. And McNair might even play in 16 games.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals

                                Originally posted by btowncolt View Post
                                Even if Lewis were out, at least he's goes down knowing he'll probably throw as many TD passes this year as McNair. And McNair might even play in 16 games.
                                Yeah, he has the weakest arm in the league now I'd imagine. I bet you he can't throw the ball over 50 yards. The Ravens really should have looked to draft a young QB this year..because Boller is not the answer. McNair was a temporary solution that allowed them to at least compete for the time being, but they def need a new QB now.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X