LOL Pats Fans - it never ends | Page 18 | The Boneyard

LOL Pats Fans - it never ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
zyron said:
Sounds like a bunch of your opinions, not truths.
Expand ...

ok. let me rephrase.

In the context of the debate you will see that I am correct.

The debate was whether or not UCONN and the patriots are the same type of situation. In other words, you would have to be very biased to say uconn was screwed, but the patriots were not. You can say either UConn and the patriots deserved what they got or that both got screwed. each case VERY closely mirrors each other. That was my main point. What I did not take into account is the person who doesn't believe the NFL or NCAA are corrupt. Most believe they are corrupt and make stupid illogical decisions. You would have to be insanely biased to say that only one team was screwed and not the other. However, a huge percent of those people who meet that criteria are on this board.
 
Sportsman5 said:
There is a small penalty for what the pats may have done. The NFL took the liberyt to penalize them way beyond what the rules dictated at the time of the potential transgression. This also happened to UConn. There is a similarity between Goodell and Emmert. In both cases UConn and the patriots were used as an example to overcompensate for their damaged reputation. The NCAA has a rep for not caring about academics and the NFL duck*ed up the ray rice thing and completely overcompensated for it with this punishment. In addition, emmert had an axe to grind with UConn, and Goodell wanted to crush the pats because Kraft said that if the NFL doesn't find definitive evidence against the pats, then he wants an apology from the NFL and Goodell. There wasn't any sort of conclusive evidence, but some how the NFL comes to a conclusion that allows them and Goodell to accomplish their goals. All of these things are true. Whether you believe brady ordered the balls to be deflated or not is up to you. No one knows the truth. However, there's no question that there wasn't conclusive evidence. And there's no question that the pats and Uconn situation mirror each other in many ways.
Expand ...
"Truths" sorry but your entire post was your opinions.
 
Sportsman5 said:
ok. let me rephrase.

In the context of the debate you will see that I am correct.

The debate was whether or not UCONN and the patriots are the same type of situation. In other words, you would have to be very biased to say uconn was screwed, but the patriots were not. You can say either UConn and the patriots deserved what they got or that both got screwed. each case VERY closely mirrors each other. That was my main point. What I did not take into account is the person who doesn't believe the NFL or NCAA are corrupt. Most believe they are corrupt and make stupid illogical decisions. You would have to be insanely biased to say that only one team was screwed and not the other. However, a huge percent of those people who meet that criteria are on this board.
Expand ...
Again, this is just your opinion. I don't think the UConn situation and the Patriots situation are at all similar.
 
.-.
Sportsman5 said:
I will bet my life you are a new york sports fan
Expand ...
I am, I've stated that many times here. What on earth does that have to do with me thinking the UConn situation and Patriots situation are not at all alike?
 
PcketknfNiels said:
My post at the bottom of the previous page explains all that needs to be said. Really no need to argue anything beyond that.
Expand ...

The situations are 100% different and have been talked about many times.
 
zyron said:
The situations are 100% different and have been talked about many times.
Expand ...

Pats fans are on their final (far-fetched) argument: false equivalence. Eventually they'll give in, but they're a stubborn bunch.
 
johnhuskies95 said:
I'm guessing that phrasing had more to do with legalese than anything else. I don't know why people are getting hung up on that.
Expand ...
Um because words mean things?
 
.-.
superjohn said:
I am, I've stated that many times here. What on earth does that have to do with me thinking the UConn situation and Patriots situation are not at all alike?
Expand ...
You are so missing the point, it's comical. I never denied that the Pats "cheated"" if that's what you want to call it. All I said is that if you believe this somehow "taints" the Patriots legacy, then you must admit that UConn's legacy must also be tainted because of JC's "cheating". If you agree w that, then I have no problem with your criticism of the Pats. If you don't, then you're just a hypocrite living in a glass house throwing stones. Neither of the so called "offenses" ever determined the outcome of one single game, never mind the 4 championships each team owns. So which is it??
 
uconngb said:
Neither of the so called "offenses" ever determined the outcome of one single game
Expand ...

How do you know what the Pat's did didn't matter in the outcome of a game? The Colts game wasn't the only game they did it, why did they keep doing it then? I don't know why you keep trying to link this to UConn.
 
zyron said:
How do you know what the Pat's did didn't matter in the outcome of a game? The Colts game wasn't the only game they did it, why did they keep doing it then? I don't know why you keep trying to link this to UConn.
Expand ...
Give me some evidence of ANY other time they did this?? By the same logic, Calhoun must have over-texted thousands of times, because he did it once. And by the way, the balls were replaced for the second half, which the Pats won, I believe 28-0. The denial and extrapolation by the Pats-haters is unreal here. Keep trying to poke holes, we have 4 Super Bowls in the last 15 years, 3 of which occurred before any "cheating" allegtions wereeer uttered. I frankly don't see how this is any different than JC's "cheating". You can't have it both ways......
 
uconngb said:
Give me some evidence of ANY other time they did this?? By the same logic, Calhoun must have over-texted thousands of times, because he did it once. And by the way, the balls were replaced for the second half, which the Pats won, I believe 28-0. The denial and extrapolation by the Pats-haters is unreal here. Keep trying to poke holes, we have 4 Super Bowls in the last 15 years, 3 of which occurred before any "cheating" allegtions wereeer uttered. I frankly don't see how this is any different than JC's "cheating". You can't have it both ways.
Expand ...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, your a f%^&*ng idiot.
 
zyron said:
The situations are 100% different and have been talked about many times.
Expand ...

Other than being exactly the same, hardly being discussed at all since the initial comment, and you clearly either not reading/comprehending what I said under the link, you are 100% correct.
 
.-.
PcketknfNiels said:
Other than being exactly the same, hardly being discussed at all since the initial comment, and you clearly either not reading/comprehending what I said under the link, you are 100% correct.
Expand ...

Wow, just wow.
 
johnhuskies95 said:
Pats fans are on their final (far-fetched) argument: false equivalence. Eventually they'll give in, but they're a stubborn bunch.
Expand ...

Even though ESPN influence probably has something to do with the current conference situation UConn finds themselves in...
 
uconngb said:
You are so missing the point, it's comical. I never denied that the Pats "cheated"" if that's what you want to call it. All I said is that if you believe this somehow "taints" the Patriots legacy, then you must admit that UConn's legacy must also be tainted because of JC's "cheating". If you agree w that, then I have no problem with your criticism of the Pats. If you don't, then you're just a hypocrite living in a glass house throwing stones. Neither of the so called "offenses" ever determined the outcome of one single game, never mind the 4 championships each team owns. So which is it??
Expand ...
Your reading comprehension stinks. What does my being a Giants fan have to do with me thinking the UConn situation and the Patriots situation are not at all alike? I don't think the situation at UNC or Syracuse is at all similar to the Patriots situation either. First of all they aren't so called "offenses" second of all, how do you know their cheating never determined the outcome of one single game. Why do you think they were breaking these rules, just for the fun of it? I along with pretty much everyone outside of the Boston area think they did it to gain a competitive advantage.
 
PcketknfNiels said:
Okay, other than 1 guy going under the accepted range and the other guy going over, explain how they're "totally opposite".
Expand ...

If, the Patriots gave the refs under-inflated footballs and the refs didn't check them, that is 100% the refs fault. If the Packers gave the refs regulation footballs, the refs checked them, than a Packers employee went into a bathroom, with the balls, to use the urinal (even though there was no urinal in the bathroom), inflated the balls to what Rodgers likes, and then brought them on the field, that would be the same.

Rodgers never inflated the balls after the refs checked.
 
zyron said:
If, the Patriots gave the refs under-inflated footballs and the refs didn't check them, that is 100% the refs fault. If the Packers gave the refs regulation footballs, the refs checked them, than a Packers employee went into a bathroom, with the balls, to use the urinal (even though there was no urinal in the bathroom), inflated the balls to what Rodgers likes, and then brought them on the field, that would be the same.

Rodgers never inflated the balls after the refs checked.
Expand ...

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/...o_referee_doesnt_document_football_psi_levels
 
.-.
But seriously, how do you know Rodgers doesn't inflate balls after they're checked? According to you, the Pats have cheated in some form or fashion going back to 2001, and only just now got caught for ball pressure regulation.
 
PcketknfNiels said:
But seriously, how do you know Rodgers doesn't inflate balls after they're checked? According to you, the Pats have cheated in some form or fashion going back to 2001, and only just now got caught for ball pressure regulation.
Expand ...

You're (Happy?) right, they were never sanctioned for anything else in that time period.
 
zyron said:
You're (Happy?) right, they were never sanctioned for anything else in that time period.
Expand ...

Did they get caught for ball pressure regulation before? And you're missing the point, you think they've been cheating since at least 2001, Spygate wasn't until 2008, Deflategate wasn't until 2015. How can you be positive about Rodgers?
 
PcketknfNiels said:
Did they get caught for ball pressure regulation before? And you're missing the point, you think they've been cheating since at least 2001, Spygate wasn't until 2008, Deflategate wasn't until 2015. How can you be positive about Rodgers?
Expand ...

First, I never said that, and if I did, show me. Second, I don't have to be, he wasn't caught.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,196
Messages
4,556,433
Members
10,442
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom