I think if the league would implement NHL rules i.e. take out a player from the defense/offense for 3 games plus take another number one pick from them.

That would be interesting.

Dunno a darn thing about these NHL rules, but which player would you pick? And why would you punish a player anyway? And at that point you're entangling the Union. It wouldn't seem to make alot of sense.

And you can't take "another number one pick" when the "new" information/tapes contain NOTHING that is actually, you know, new. :D

Let the team take their pick who sits out.

Also the NHL is Union (i presume). I'm just saying it make the game more challenging for them. And neat to see how the other teams would play them formation wise with that factor.

Do you get tired of saying the same shit in every single post?

Only a dickface like you would take a completely-unrelated thread and turn it into a Herm bash.

Your act is about as old as Dice Clay's.

Thank GOD Walsh threw his hat in the ring for all of 8 tapes of already admitted to cheating. That was very worth the nonsense.

DOUCHEBAG.

"consistent with what we already knew" doesn't mean they knew precisely which games were taped. It just means that - "yeah, we knew they taped opposing teams." If the NFL's position was that they knew the Pats taped every single game since Belichick took over, then that was not made clear to the fans.

The statements issued by the league and Belichick were certainly drafted in a manner to insinuate only the Jets game was at issue.


"This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid longstanding rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field," Goodell wrote in a letter to the Patriots.

["This episode" makes it look like a single episode.]

Belichick responded with a statement shortly after Goodell's ruling became public.


"As the Commissioner acknowledged, our use of sideline video had no impact on the outcome of last week's game. We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress."

[Again, Belichick specifically references the outcome of "last week's game".]

I agree that the NFL was not very clear about what the Patriots had done -- at least not initially. They clearly wanted to seem firm on this issue, while burying it as a fast as possible, while giving out a minimum of details.

Nonetheless, it is now VERY clear that the Patriots had told Goodell waaay back when that they had taped every game since BB took over.

Repeat:

That may be true, but I have yet to see (not that I looked very hard) a direct quote from Goodell that says "Belichick admitted to taping every single game since he became head coach."

Goodell is responsible for all of this lingering news since he tried to bury it as quickly as possible without disclosing details.

Re-read my quote. That's exactly what Goodell said. Pats admitting taping every game since BB became coach. For the third time:

You are quoting a Boston article that did not put Goodell's statement in quotes. The article reads:

"Goodell explained that the league's penalty against the Patriots early last season was for the totality of the team's videotaping actions, and that coach Bill Belichick acknowledged he had videotaped opposing signals since the start of his Patriots head coaching career."

I'm just saying, I don't recall seeing the exact quote from Goodell.

Ah, I see your point.

:shrug: Can't find a quote, but it's a direct quote from Specter after he met with Goodell.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?pro...cter&type=lgns

PUNISH THEM MORE! The damn champ game! They better get hit hard for that. Pitt should be screaming for Belifuks head.

So there's been 7 seasons of cheating and they got 1 first round pick taken away. And further, they magically skipped over the #7....

Call it the most severe punishment ever levied but that doesn't mean it was fair.

They basically got away with it, may as well move on.

I agree. Given the lack of significant competitive advantage it afforded, it was probably too harsh. But hey, reasonable minds can disagree. :evil: