Wow guys, I didn't realize that talking about "that" was SO taboo suddenly. It seemed on topic and a I thought it was a reasonable point. I'm sorry I offended you so.
biju wrote:Wow guys, I didn't realize that talking about "that" was SO taboo suddenly. It seemed on topic and a I thought it was a reasonable point. I'm sorry I offended you so.
I actually agree.
But this culture (and I mean outside of this forum) is big on the "it is what it is" and "it's in the past, I've moved on" kind of sentiment, so I guess we all have to drop it because we were told to, even if it is still unresolved in some ways.
As for this, this really is a case of "everyone does it," but again, it doesn't mean you don't get punished if you get caught. It's not an excuse. Didn't the Niners get busted a while ago for violating the cap? Oh well, I think the Bears should have some restitution, as it was their guy who got tampered with.
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
biju wrote:Wow guys, I didn't realize that talking about "that" was SO taboo suddenly. It seemed on topic and a I thought it was a reasonable point. I'm sorry I offended you so.
Melodramatic much?
What does one have to do with the other? I wasn't "offended", but Spygate's been beaten to death and then some, and I'd soon not see a thread about the San Francisco 49ers tampering with Lance Briggs get turned into yet another brouhaha about the Patriots.
eaglesrule wrote:But this culture (and I mean outside of this forum) is big on the "it is what it is" and "it's in the past, I've moved on" kind of sentiment, so I guess we all have to drop it because we were told to, even if it is still unresolved in some ways.
No one's forcing you to do anything. You wanna start another thread about Spygate and rehash what's already been hashed over and over and over and over again go for it. This thread, however, is about the San Francisco 49ers tampering with Lance Briggs, and while both tampering and videotaping another team's Defensive Signals are "cheating" the similarities between the two situations end there. (excepting that Goodell handled both poorly)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
biju wrote:Wow guys, I didn't realize that talking about "that" was SO taboo suddenly. It seemed on topic and a I thought it was a reasonable point. I'm sorry I offended you so.
Melodramatic much?
What does one have to do with the other? I wasn't "offended", but Spygate's been beaten to death and then some, and I'd soon not see a thread about the San Francisco 49ers tampering with Lance Briggs get turned into yet another brouhaha about the Patriots.
eaglesrule wrote:But this culture (and I mean outside of this forum) is big on the "it is what it is" and "it's in the past, I've moved on" kind of sentiment, so I guess we all have to drop it because we were told to, even if it is still unresolved in some ways.
No one's forcing you to do anything. You wanna start another thread about Spygate and rehash what's already been hashed over and over and over and over again go for it. This thread, however, is about the San Francisco 49ers tampering with Lance Briggs, and while both tampering and videotaping another team's Defensive Signals are "cheating" the similarities between the two situations end there. (excepting that Goodell handled both poorly)
Um I was using "we" really more in the sense of the abstract. As in, in greater dialgoue a lot of time it seems like the perpetrator dictates the length of the term of the discussion because he/she/it has "moved on," and "it is what it is." I realize no one is "forcing me to do anything," I'm here voluntarily. I have no desire to hash out SpyGate.
HOWEVER, I'd say they are related in two senses: Cheating at the organizational level in the NFL, Goodell's poor, some would say illogical handling of discipline. Expecting a thread about cheating, happening in this offseason not to have a reference or a couple of comments about Spygate is kind of silly. If we wanted to be uber-specific, no topic would ever be related to another if you looked finely enough, since everything has different circumstances.
Whatever though, my point was more about how things are just suddenly verboten, not really about that. I don't really care about the niners. although the tampering thing is ridiculous. either you are allowed to, or not. How do teams (I know the Eagles did this), sign people five minutes into free agency? Doesn't take a rocket scientist.
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
Let me start by stating that I distrust anything Goodall does. He has proven to have pretty shakey character and levies disciplines plucked right out of his Millen. There is no reason to justify the Bears gaining a draft position. It makes no sense at all. Unless the Bears FO is looked upon favorably by the Goodall Boys. And as long as we want to save the integrity of the game, Goodall, how come the chief culprit goes unscathed? Why don't you revoke Drew Rosenhaus's rights to act on behave of NFL players for X amount of time? Are we to believe that Drew didn't know that he shouldn't have been in contact with other teams? Why is nothing done? NEXT QUESTION!
I think, therefore I am. I think fantasy, therefore I am unreal?
moochman
Hall of Fame Hero
Posts: 16214
(Past Year: 856)
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Yards this season: 568
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Living in the shame only a Lions fan knows
biju wrote:Wow guys, I didn't realize that talking about "that" was SO taboo suddenly. It seemed on topic and a I thought it was a reasonable point. I'm sorry I offended you so.
Melodramatic much?
What does one have to do with the other? I wasn't "offended", but Spygate's been beaten to death and then some, and I'd soon not see a thread about the San Francisco 49ers tampering with Lance Briggs get turned into yet another brouhaha about the Patriots.
I used a past reference to argue that the current discipling of teams breaking rules and compensating the "victim" team is against the precedent previously set. Maybe the last sentence of my post was misplaced, but otherwise I don't see the point you're trying to make. The only reason why this thread is now officially about "that" is because you made a big stink about it.
biju wrote:Wow guys, I didn't realize that talking about "that" was SO taboo suddenly. It seemed on topic and a I thought it was a reasonable point. I'm sorry I offended you so.
Melodramatic much?
What does one have to do with the other? I wasn't "offended", but Spygate's been beaten to death and then some, and I'd as soon not see a thread about the San Francisco 49ers tampering with Lance Briggs get turned into yet another brouhaha about the Patriots.
I used a past reference to argue that the current discipling of teams breaking rules and compensating the "victim" team is against the precedent previously set. Maybe the last sentence of my post was misplaced, but otherwise I don't see the point you're trying to make. The only reason why this thread is now officially about "that" is because you made a big stink about it.
My "point", "stink", or whatever you want to call is just what I said above. Was that somehow unclear?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
biju wrote:Wow guys, I didn't realize that talking about "that" was SO taboo suddenly. It seemed on topic and a I thought it was a reasonable point. I'm sorry I offended you so.
Theres a difference between taboo and beating a dead horse.
Upset that Faine went to Tampa Bay so (too?) quickly Tuesday, March 25, 2008 Remember how quickly the Buccaneers moved to sign Jeff Faine? Herm Edwards apparently thinks it was a bit too quick.
Speaking Monday to promote his football camp, the Chiefs head coach and former Buc assistant wondered aloud how the Bucs managed to get Faine, a player Kansas City also wanted.
"You'd have to ask Tampa. I don't know what Tampa did," Edwards said, adding that "there were probably some deals done before" the league permitted free agent contact, midnight of Feb. 28.
On the heels of Monday's league sanctions against San Francisco for allegedly tampering with Bears linebacker Lance Briggs, the Bucs may get looked into.
"We didn't cheat. We abided by the rules," Edwards said.
Last week Matt Lehr, made expendable when Tampa Bay signed Jeff Faine, signed with New Orleans.
Lehr did not start last year, his only in Tampa Bay, but appeared in every game.
deerayfan072 wrote:Something to your thoughts Kilroy?
Upset that Faine went to Tampa Bay so (too?) quickly Tuesday, March 25, 2008 Remember how quickly the Buccaneers moved to sign Jeff Faine? Herm Edwards apparently thinks it was a bit too quick.
Speaking Monday to promote his football camp, the Chiefs head coach and former Buc assistant wondered aloud how the Bucs managed to get Faine, a player Kansas City also wanted.
"You'd have to ask Tampa. I don't know what Tampa did," Edwards said, adding that "there were probably some deals done before" the league permitted free agent contact, midnight of Feb. 28.
On the heels of Monday's league sanctions against San Francisco for allegedly tampering with Bears linebacker Lance Briggs, the Bucs may get looked into.
"We didn't cheat. We abided by the rules," Edwards said.
Last week Matt Lehr, made expendable when Tampa Bay signed Jeff Faine, signed with New Orleans.
Lehr did not start last year, his only in Tampa Bay, but appeared in every game.
Not surprising in the least. If it can get them a better pick what do teams have to lose by hollering "tampering"?
Nothin', that's what. I'd wager this won't be the last time either.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by biju » Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:24 am 
