There are 144 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

John Harbaugh: Patriots' titles have asterisks, are stained

Originally posted by mkmasn:
Originally posted by SunDevilNiner79:
Originally posted by danimal:
What kind of illogical BS is that? How can an action's impact or lack thereof be non relevant in tainting an accomplishment?

If it had no impact then the accomplishment is not tainted at all.
If it had an impact then it did taint it.

You can't have it both ways and be noncommittal on whether there was an impact yet state it does automatically taint the accomplishment.

I happen to believe it had zero impact, thus I don't view their accomplishment as tainted at all. They won 3 of 4 Super Bowls and dominated the league. If the other 31 teams need to cling to something to allow themselves to believe that is not exactly what happened then so be it.

49er fans should be especially aware of this. Do you even grasp that there was a large argument that the Niners did NOT dominate the 80's because they cheated

I dont think thats his point. I think his point was, we will never really know how much of an impact cheating had. There is no way to know. What we do know is they haven't won the SB since, which credits the idea it did have some impact.

Thus, sure they are the SB winners, but its tainted.

What about all the games leading up to the superbowl... They were, before and after spygate, and still are a dominant team. From the looks of last year, they didn't need tape to get to the Superbowl

No, just need it to win it.
  • DVDA
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 2,336
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d828ca952/article/mangini-regrets-turning-in-patriots-over-videotaping?module=HP11_headline_stack

What ever happened to professionalism in journalism? How does this guy or either of the Cohn's have a job?

"(Cue the moronic: "But they haven't won a title since!" crowd.)"
Originally posted by OKC49erFan:
Originally posted by mkmasn:
Originally posted by SunDevilNiner79:
Originally posted by danimal:
What kind of illogical BS is that? How can an action's impact or lack thereof be non relevant in tainting an accomplishment?

If it had no impact then the accomplishment is not tainted at all.
If it had an impact then it did taint it.

You can't have it both ways and be noncommittal on whether there was an impact yet state it does automatically taint the accomplishment.

I happen to believe it had zero impact, thus I don't view their accomplishment as tainted at all. They won 3 of 4 Super Bowls and dominated the league. If the other 31 teams need to cling to something to allow themselves to believe that is not exactly what happened then so be it.

49er fans should be especially aware of this. Do you even grasp that there was a large argument that the Niners did NOT dominate the 80's because they cheated

I dont think thats his point. I think his point was, we will never really know how much of an impact cheating had. There is no way to know. What we do know is they haven't won the SB since, which credits the idea it did have some impact.

Thus, sure they are the SB winners, but its tainted.

What about all the games leading up to the superbowl... They were, before and after spygate, and still are a dominant team. From the looks of last year, they didn't need tape to get to the Superbowl

No, just need it to win it.

I agree it's tainted, but to make the argument they only won the superbowl because of it is ridiculous. They obviously had no problem getting to the superbowl without it.

/thread.
Mangini is not very bright. How did he expect the sheeple to react? All they look for is any excuse to believe their team did not suck that bad in that period and the best team really was not the best. And you just handed it to them.

Sometimes when I hear him talk on TV or Radio I wonder how the hell he ever got the moniker "ManGenius" he is anything but
Originally posted by danimal:
Mangini is not very bright. How did he expect the sheeple to react? All they look for is any excuse to believe their team did not suck that bad in that period and the best team really was not the best. And you just handed it to them.

Sometimes when I hear him talk on TV or Radio I wonder how the hell he ever got the moniker "ManGenius" he is anything but

I like Mangini on TV, I think he's pretty insightful and also very measured in what he says.
Originally posted by danimal:
I did answer. I think Belichick is a thorough student of the game. Maybe there was a long term benefit to be gained in studying for long term trends. Maybe he just wanted to be sure there was no way to get around the signal safeguards....maybe he wanted to borrow there techniques in fortifying his own safe guards. There are plenty of reasons to do it, I think this is a case of Belichick just being more thorough and intelligent and is being punished because of that.

I think it is also something to factor in that as far as we can tell Belichick was assigning very minor resources to this.

As for the asterisk thing I just think the whole concept is lame. I do absolutely view it as a All or Nothing proposition. Either stricken something from the records or leave it the f**k alone.

The reason it needs to be all or nothing is because then it becomes unfair to focus on certain championships, records or eras.

If you put an asterisk on the Pats then you better put an Asterisk on the Saints. Better put an Asterisk on the Niners of the 80's with their illegal methods of compensating players and always getting the best FA's this way. Eddie D is a felon and his charges were sports and gambling related so asterisk for all those Niner championships.

Asterisk ALL the baseball champions of the steroid era.

How about in the 60's when the pain cream was illegal, asterisk those teams too.

Damn right I am being all or nothing, you are not being all or nothing enough. If you can't define why an asterisk is called for then that opens the gates to call into question everybody.

The term "if you are not cheating you are not trying" I think fits perfectly here. It basically means if you are not constantly testing the boundaries you are not competing. But they all are competing, and they all are testing the boundaries

Funny.

Everything done in the 80s was within the rules and you know it. It's what led to salary cap because the small market teams couldn't compete money wise with owners like Eddy D and Jerry Jones' As for Eddy you have the wrong decade. And it wasn't for "sports" betting it was for bribing local polititians to get a casino built in on the gulf coast.
Originally posted by kingairta:
Originally posted by danimal:
I did answer. I think Belichick is a thorough student of the game. Maybe there was a long term benefit to be gained in studying for long term trends. Maybe he just wanted to be sure there was no way to get around the signal safeguards....maybe he wanted to borrow there techniques in fortifying his own safe guards. There are plenty of reasons to do it, I think this is a case of Belichick just being more thorough and intelligent and is being punished because of that.

I think it is also something to factor in that as far as we can tell Belichick was assigning very minor resources to this.

As for the asterisk thing I just think the whole concept is lame. I do absolutely view it as a All or Nothing proposition. Either stricken something from the records or leave it the f**k alone.

The reason it needs to be all or nothing is because then it becomes unfair to focus on certain championships, records or eras.

If you put an asterisk on the Pats then you better put an Asterisk on the Saints. Better put an Asterisk on the Niners of the 80's with their illegal methods of compensating players and always getting the best FA's this way. Eddie D is a felon and his charges were sports and gambling related so asterisk for all those Niner championships.

Asterisk ALL the baseball champions of the steroid era.

How about in the 60's when the pain cream was illegal, asterisk those teams too.

Damn right I am being all or nothing, you are not being all or nothing enough. If you can't define why an asterisk is called for then that opens the gates to call into question everybody.

The term "if you are not cheating you are not trying" I think fits perfectly here. It basically means if you are not constantly testing the boundaries you are not competing. But they all are competing, and they all are testing the boundaries

Funny.

Everything done in the 80s was within the rules and you know it. It's what led to salary cap because the small market teams couldn't compete money wise with owners like Eddy D and Jerry Jones' As for Eddy you have the wrong decade. And it wasn't for "sports" betting it was for bribing local polititians to get a casino built in on the gulf coast.

You are not understanding the point. I feel the Niners and Cowboys were within the rules. I am speaking in terms of what many other non Niner fans felt in those times. I am pointing out the hypicrosy of Niner fans today doing exactly what we hated that was done to us in the past.

If anything we should be relating with Saints and Patriots fans and now they should relate to us better.

Same thing with the Eddie D sports betting. Cmon man, you swear I don't know what his charges were. But during that time it was pointed out how closely related the offense was to sports betting. Casinos do have sports books you know? Many Niner haters in that time did point out that it would have been one thing if Eddie D was bribing politicians to build a Mall vs a Gambling Unit when he is a owner of a NFL team, which just happens to be a highly wagered on contestant.

Bottom line is Patriot fans views the rest of us as haters just as we once did.....and I for one think they are right
[ Edited by danimal on May 4, 2012 at 11:21 AM ]
  • flow
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 2,394
Super Bowl XLVI Champions: The New York Giants*

*and Kyle Williams
FWIW - Heard someone on Jim Rome this morning saying that if Pats lose another Superbowl, their history will basically show 3 superbowl wins, then Spygate, followed by 3 Superbowl losses.

lol