Learn from the Patriots: Theres Power in Loyalty

[coblue]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=adams

[SultanOfSix]

I wonder if he did a statistical analysis on the Pats' video tapes of other teams' signals.

[Yakuza Rich]

:rolleyes:

So where was Adams in Belichick's first 6 years as coach and in the first 2 games of the 2001 season before Bledsoe got injured on a fluke play and Brady came in?

Hate to tell the author that Dallas was on the forefront of football statistics, tendencies, and research back in the late 60's and early 70's. Hell, they made a movie about it.



YAKUZA

[Nors]

That is a total great read -

On loyalty of BB and how detailed they are at everything they do. Especially hoe BB goes for it on 4th down a lot versus punting.

My moles say this guy is the guy who says yes no on challenges and is the guy breaking down teams signals real time.

Jimmy Johnson said he stopped taping signals because he didn't gain anything doing it. You need a genious like this to actually do it. Kinda like counting cards at the casino, Few can actually do it!

[Bach]

My moles say this guy is the guy who says yes no on challenges and is the guy breaking down teams signals real time.


Your moles talk to you?

Dude, I'd see a dermatologist if I were you.

[tyke1doe]

Your moles talk to you?

Dude, I'd see a dermatologist if I were you.

:laugh2:

[tyke1doe]

I wonder if he did a statistical analysis on the Pats' video tapes of other teams' signals.

Still bitter I see. ;)

[Nors]

Baseball teams never try and steal 3rd base coach signs!

It's totally legal to tape signs from upstairs or with Binoculers. Pats were busted for taking video from the field. I'm sure Ernie has it all in his head and is still dogging stupid teams that get complacent with signals.

Good story on loyalty and attention to detail.

[Rampage]

That is a total great read -

On loyalty of BB and how detailed they are at everything they do. Especially hoe BB goes for it on 4th down a lot versus punting.

My moles say this guy is the guy who says yes no on challenges and is the guy breaking down teams signals real time.

Jimmy Johnson said he stopped taping signals because he didn't gain anything doing it. You need a genious like this to actually do it. Kinda like counting cards at the casino, Few can actually do it!
i wonder if he would be a "genious" without Tom Brady?

[Big Country]

i wonder if he would be a "genious" without Tom Brady?

doubt it...

[Nors]

i wonder if he would be a "genious" without Tom Brady?

Valid point, maybe Brady is this era's Joe Montana. Attention to detail and preparation.

[SultanOfSix]

Still bitter I see. ;)

:lmao2:

Bitter about cheaters and hacks? You wish.

[yimyammer]

I'll probably get lynched for admiting this, but I really like Bellichik and the New England coaching and management philosphy and I really like guys like Adams . This article just provides more insight into how the Pats are playing chess and the rest of the league is struggling just to play checkers.

Gawd, I wish the Cowboys could find some football freak genius's like the Pats have. Hopefully Garrett will prove to be one......

[TheHerd]

The media loves to cover this angle of the Patriots. The fans around here lap it up like honey (I'm in NE). I sear everyone around here thinks Belichick is the only coach who actually studies film and the Pats are the only team who hold practices.

I've got news for everyone - all head coaches prepare like crazy. All team use stats and all teams practice and prepare. Hell - Wade even said they spent tons of time every day in the week before the Giants game practicing for the exact play that killed us. Why did we fail? Because Reeves and Roy suck.

The Pats are a top team, and Belichick is a top coach. But two things push them over the top: guts and Brady. If they lose either, they will still be good but just another good team.

[tyke1doe]

:lmao2:

Bitter about cheaters and hacks? You wish.

Cheaters and hacks about to win their fourth Super Bowl while our team is sitting home with its stale popcorn.

[tyke1doe]

Baseball teams never try and steal 3rd base coach signs!

It's totally legal to tape signs from upstairs or with Binoculers. Pats were busted for taking video from the field. I'm sure Ernie has it all in his head and is still dogging stupid teams that get complacent with signals.

Good story on loyalty and attention to detail.

It's amazing how upset fans are getting over this as if cheating doesn't happen in the league. :rolleyes:

The Cowboys cheated, even Jimmy Johnson admits as much.

But Cowboys fans would get fighting mad if someone wanted to toss asterisks on their Super Bowls.

The only difference is the technology used to steal signals. But it's the same as trying to make a distinction between killing someone with a knife or a light saber - excuse the crude Star Wars reference.

If you're going to get morally outraged over cheating, then NO cheating should be acceptable, including the cheating done by the Cowboys.

[SultanOfSix]

Cheaters and hacks about to win their fourth Super Bowl while our team is sitting home with its stale popcorn.

Whoopadeedoo!

You can win as many things as you want while you're a cheater. It still doesn't make you any less of the latter.

[tyke1doe]

Whoopadeedoo!

You can win as many things as you want while you're a cheater. It still doesn't make you any less of the latter.

Yep, the cheating Cowboys have two Super Bowls during the reign of signal-thief Jimmy Johnson.

It doesn't matter because no matter how you slice it, the Cowboys are still Super Bowl champions of the 92-93, 93-94 season . :D

[SultanOfSix]

Yep, the cheating Cowboys have two Super Bowls during the reign of signal-thief Jimmy Johnson.

It doesn't matter because no matter how you slice it, the Cowboys are still Super Bowl champions of the 92-93, 93-94 season . :D

ROFLMAO. You and Nors must be the same person.

Your argument is vacuous, because what JJ did wasn't illegal, nor was it considered cheating by the NFL, nor was it like what Bellicheat did. But, let's not let facts get in the way of your Cheats defending agenda.

[tyke1doe]

ROFLMAO. You and Nors must be the same person.

Your argument is vacuous, because what JJ did wasn't illegal, nor was it considered cheating by the NFL, nor was it like what Bellicheat did. But, let's not let facts get in the way of your Cheats defending agenda.

ooooo! "Vacuous."
We're pulling out the $5 words now. :laugh:

First, you are making an argument about "cheating" not that it was illegal. We already know it was illegal, according to NFL policy. And based on the policy, they were punished. But you don't like the punishment so you continue to call them cheaters. You are focusing on their ACTION not the policy.

Well, if that's the case, then the Cowboys cheated also.

Second, if you're going to talk about illegalities, then that disqualifies the Cowboys even more so because Hollywood Henderson admitted to taking drugs during the Cowboys Super Bowl years. So, by your argument, the Cowboys benefited from a cheater, i.e., a man who was doped up while playing.

Moreover, we know that Michael Irvin had a drug problem - during his years with the Cowboys. It was just kept under wraps until Jimmy Johnson left. And you do know taking drugs is illegal, both according to NFL policy and the laws of this land, right?

So if you want to make a big about illegal all of the Cowboys Super Bowl wins had an element of illegality to them, no matter how you want to look at it.

Pulease. That's what happens when people become self-righteous, they invite scrutiny upon themselves and expose their own faults.

The Cowboys were as guilty as any other franchise in terms of illegality, if we use your selective definition. They benefited from wins by playing players who KNOWINGLY violated the rules of the NFL.

Here's a stone. Aim it in the direction of your own glass house. ;)

[SultanOfSix]

Just shut up. You're annoying.

You're diversionary tactics are legendary. Your stupidity is phenomenal as well, because cheating isn't applicable either in JJ's case, and neither is illegality. Cheating is defined to be giving yourself an "unfair" advantage over an opponent. And if everyone in the league could have done it because it wasn't against the rules, then it can't be considered cheating.

I don't need to go through your obfuscating garbage to see your blind Pats homerism.

[Chocolate Lab]

Just shut up. You're annoying.

You're diversionary tactics are legendary. Your stupidity is phenomenal as well, because cheating isn't applicable either in JJ's case, and neither is illegality. Cheating is defined to be giving yourself an "unfair" advantage over an opponent. And if everyone in the league could have done it because it wasn't against the rules, then it can't be considered cheating.

I don't need to go through your obfuscating garbage to see your blind Pats homerism.

:spanking: :laugh2:

[superpunk]

Just shut up. You're annoying.

I don't need to go through your obfuscating garbage to see your blind Pats homerism.

I quote this part of your post for it's troof.

[tyke1doe]

Just shut up. You're annoying.

:lmao2:

What an adult response.

You're diversionary tactics are legendary. Your stupidity is phenomenal as well, because cheating isn't applicable either in JJ's case, and neither is illegality. Cheating is defined to be giving yourself an "unfair" advantage over an opponent. And if everyone in the league could have done it because it wasn't against the rules, then it can't be considered cheating.


So it's cheating when it suits your purpose. But when it doesn't it's illegal. :lmao2:

You can't even follow your own argument. And I'm sure you can't even follow your own logic. No wonder you're confused.

Exactly how do you measure "unfair advantage," practically?

The only reason why you are harping on this is because the Patriots are WINNING!!!!

If they weren't winnning, they would not be receiving an "unfair advantage."

Moreoever, you must not be paying attention to the multitude of players and coaches who've basically admitted that cheating goes on ALL THE TIME in the NFL. It's just that video taping is not allowed.

So if you're just going to equate cheating with illegality, then the Pats were punished. And the matter should be over.

But it's not over because you don't like the fact that they're winning and you believe their wins are a product of their cheating.


I don't need to go through your obfuscating garbage to see your blind Pats homerism.


Translation: I really can't argue you point about the illegal drug use among the Cowboys because that would really turn my argument on its head and I'd rather not bother with moral consistency. ;)

P.S. It's good to be known as a legend. :D ;)

[tyke1doe]

I quote this part of your post for it's troof.

I quote this post for its ignorance. :D

[khiladi]

:lmao2:


Translation: I really can't argue you point about the illegal drug use among the Cowboys because that would really turn my argument on its head and I'd rather not bother with moral consistency. ;)

P.S. It's good to be known as a legend. :D ;)

Your 'legendary status' has more to do with the fact that your 'analogies' are just plain dumb... Further examples of such absurdity are the following:

Exactly how do you measure "unfair advantage," practically?

Another example is:

So if you're just going to equate cheating with illegality, then the Pats were punished. And the matter should be over.

He obviously isn't. Your whole argument is predicated on the 'absurd' notion that one cannot measure 'unfair advantage'... strange...

Why would the NFL have a rule in the first place regarding an unmeasurable factor?

[SultanOfSix]

:lmao2:
What an adult response.

Well, it depends on the context. For example, if a child is making boisterous noises and running round like a little nuisance, all the while thinking he's bigger than the other children, knocking over their toys, or perhaps correcting their grammar or ridiculing the words they use, sometimes it's more adult like to tell them to just shut up and sit down.

So it's cheating when it suits your purpose. But when it doesn't it's illegal. :lmao2:

No. It is what it is according to its definition.

You can't even follow your own argument. And I'm sure you can't even follow your own logic. No wonder you're confused.

You can't follow anyone's argument.

Exactly how do you measure "unfair advantage," practically?

Irrelevant. The NFL obviously did. Are you really this stupid?

The only reason why you are harping on this is because the Patriots are WINNING!!!!

If they weren't winnning, they would not be receiving an "unfair advantage."


Again, absolutely irrelevant. It doesn't matter why I am harping on it.

Moreoever, you must not be paying attention to the multitude of players and coaches who've basically admitted that cheating goes on ALL THE TIME in the NFL. It's just that video taping is not allowed.

OH NOES. Another Nors-like, apologetic argument. Everyone's doing it! Why can't I?

So if you're just going to equate cheating with illegality, then the Pats were punished. And the matter should be over.

I didn't equate anything, you illiterate.

But it's not over because you don't like the fact that they're winning and you believe their wins are a product of their cheating.

Again with the why?

Translation: I really can't argue you point about the illegal drug use among the Cowboys because that would really turn my argument on its head and I'd rather not bother with moral consistency. ;)

P.S. It's good to be known as a legend. :D ;)

Translation: I have no idea what I'm talking about. Let me obfuscate the issue again.

[tyke1doe]

Your 'legendary status' has more to do with the fact that your 'analogies' are just plain dumb... Further examples of such absurdity are the following:



Another example is:



He obviously isn't. Your whole argument is predicated on the 'absurd' notion that one cannot measure 'unfair advantage'... strange...

Why would the NFL have a rule in the first place regarding an unmeasurable factor?


I can understand you have a problem with sequential logic so let me slowwww downnnn and explain it to you.

You argue that cheating is cheating because it was illegal. You dismissed the fact that other teams cheat by saying they do it legally so it's not cheating.

You argue that by cheating, the Pats gained an unfair advantage.

I responded by saying if you are making "illegality" the issue and cheating illegally the issue, then the NFL has punished the illegal aspect of how you define cheating via its fines and by stripping the Pats of a first-round draft choice.

To your unfair advantage argument, I said you can't practically evaluate that apart from winning. If you lose, you didn't gain an unfair advantage in any practical way because you still lost.

And the reason why you are harping on the Pats and calling them cheaters is because they're winning. If they were not winning, your argument would be irrelevant.

It's quite simple, if you understand logic. But you don't know what you're arguing and, thus, you're baffled. But don't blame that on me. ;)

[khiladi]

I responded by saying if you are making "illegality" the issue and cheating illegally the issue, then the NFL has punished the illegal aspect of how you define cheating via its fines and by stripping the Pats of a first-round draft choice.

What we are disputing is the axioms that you are using, not the logic itself. And Mr. Know-it-All, all logic is sequential. There is no such thing as non-sequential logic.

To your unfair advantage argument, I said you can't practically evaluate that apart from winning. If you lose, you didn't gain an unfair advantage in any practical way because you still lost.

Really. I thought the unfair advantage argument is measured by whether something falls within the rules or not, and winning or losing is irrelevant to it. The practical measurement is established by an agreed upon code of conduct, not by the outcome of the game.
A team that is cheating could just suck so bad, that they still can't win outside the rules. None of this negates that the cheating team didn't get an unfair advantage. ALl it means is that the unfair advantage wasn't enough to overcome the opponent. You see the Patriots won 3 Super Bowls by a combined 10 points, which provides proof that the unfair advantage affected the outcome of the game. Tom Brady is undefeated in overtime, meaning the games were close until the second-half, when the Patriots needed to move the chains.

Learn about logic and axioms before telling other people that they don't know what they are talking about. The only thing you have shown is your ability to refute a proposition that only you yourself believe.

And the reason why you are harping on the Pats and calling them cheaters is because they're winning. If they were not winning, your argument would be irrelevant.

They can be winning or losing, it still doesn't matter All-Knowing Genius. They are still cheaters, gaining an unfair advantage that the opposing team has to overcome.

It's quite simple, if you understand logic. But you don't know what you're arguing and, thus, you're baffled. But don't blame that on me. ;)

I udnerstand logic very well and it is quite obvious you don't. We are disputing the axioms and propositions, not the logic itself. It is quite obvious who is obfuscating the issue...

[Yakuza Rich]

i wonder if he would be a "genious" without Tom Brady?

Probably.

You don't read and understand works on linear mathematics without being smart.

The real question is whether or not they would be successful without Tom Brady. Almost every team in the league has people that do the same stuff as Adams does. He's probably the only guy in the league that does it all.

Still, Belichick was wildly unsuccessful before Brady came along. So I don't think Adams just suddenly became brilliant overnight.




YAKUZA

[tyke1doe]

Well, it depends on the context. For example, if a child is making boisterous noises and running round like a little nuisance, all the while thinking he's bigger than the other children, knocking over their toys, or perhaps correcting their grammar or ridiculing the words they use, sometimes it's more adult like to tell them to just shut up and sit down.

Well, I don't tell my children to shut up and sit down. But if you do, then I can see why you selected such juvenile words. But carry on.


No. It is what it is according to its definition.


cheat (chēt) Pronunciation Key
v. cheat·ed, cheat·ing, cheats

v. tr.

To deceive by trickery; swindle: cheated customers by overcharging them for purchases.
To deprive by trickery; defraud: cheated them of their land.
To mislead; fool: illusions that cheat the eye.
To elude; escape: cheat death.

v. intr.

To act dishonestly; practice fraud.
To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards.
Informal To be sexually unfaithful: cheat on a spouse.
Baseball To position oneself closer to a certain area than is normal or expected: The shortstop cheated toward second base.

Seems to me that cheating can be defined by violating specified rules and by simply trying to do something dishonestly or deceptively.

It's not just an "illegal" issue. Maybe you might want to look up the definition first before you appeal to it. :)




You can't follow anyone's argument.

My daddy can beat your daddy.
No, my daddy can beat your daddy.
Well, my daddy's daddy can be your daddy.

:rolleyes:



Irrelevant. The NFL obviously did. Are you really this stupid?

No. The NFL punished the Patriots because the Patriots violated the NFL's rules.

Whether the Patriots used the tapes or didn't use the tapes was secondary to the fact that they violated a declared edit not to tape.

Now, the reason why videotaping signals is wrong is that it can give a team an unfair advantage. But you can't measure that beyond wins and losses, which is my point if you had any understanding of context.


Again, absolutely irrelevant. It doesn't matter why I am harping on it.


Translation: I just react without a motive or reason.

Out of the mouths of babies. ;)


OH NOES. Another Nors-like, apologetic argument. Everyone's doing it! Why can't I?


You are obsessed with Nors. Let it go.




I didn't equate anything, you illiterate.

You did. You just can't follow your own logic.

You said that other teams don't cheat because it's not illegal. Yet, you say the Patriots cheated because it's illegal.

Duh.


Again with the why?

That's right, you don't need a reason to justify your comments. You just offer them with no point of context.



Translation: I have no idea what I'm talking about. Let me obfuscate the issue again.


Translation: I can't even follow my own logic. But I sure like to use the $10 word "obfuscate." I'm glad someone other than I employs a dictionary. :D

[tyke1doe]

What we are disputing is the axioms that you are using, not the logic itself. Further, all logic is sequential...

It would do you well to follow the entire conversation not just insert yourself in the middle of a conversation. My statement was predicated on what SoS said.



Your argument is vacuous, because what JJ did wasn't illegal, nor was it considered cheating by the NFL, nor was it like what Bellicheat did. But, let's not let facts get in the way of your Cheats defending agenda.

You're diversionary tactics are legendary. Your stupidity is phenomenal as well, because cheating isn't applicable either in JJ's case, and neither is illegality. Cheating is defined to be giving yourself an "unfair" advantage over an opponent. And if everyone in the league could have done it because it wasn't against the rules, then it can't be considered cheating.

SoS says it isn't cheating because it's not illegal. So all the other attempts by teams to cheat is not cheating because it's not illegal. So I suppose that stealing signals "legally" isn't giving another team an "unfair advantage," even though many players and coaches have confessed that they cheated - just not the way the Pats did. :rolleyes:

This is the illogic I was responding to.


Really... Or it could just be that the team that is cheating sucks so bad, that they still can't win otuside the rules... This doesn't negate that the cheating team didn't get an unfair advantage... it simply means that the unfair advantage wasn't enough to overcome the opponent... And your talking about logic...

Yes, I am talking about logic.

In the NFL, the issue is whether you win or lose. That's how you measure everything at the end of it all.

If the Patriots cheated and fell short of the Super Bowl, we likely would not be hearing all the complaining from fans about their 18-0 record and possibly 19-0. We are discussing it because they are poised to win it all and have the perfect season.

If you go back in other threads, I've said that, yes, they possibly gained an "unfair advantage." But the only real way we can measure that is by wins and losses.

And that is understood CLEARLY because we are still talking about this issue.

No one is talking about the Jets cheating. Why? Because the Jets are LOSERS.

But thanks for injecting yourself into an argument and not understanding the full context. :)

You see the Patriots won 3 Super Bowls by a combined 10 points. Rather strange that Tom Brady is undefeated in overtime...

You're making my argument for me.

You only point to that because the Patriots WON. You too understand that "unfair advantage" has to result in a win, that's why you reference the Patriots' wins!!! And while they may have cheated and may have benefited from cheating, there's no way on earth you can prove that that win was a producting of taping. It's simply impossible to do especially since no one action wins any football game. That's my point. And it is perfectly logical.


They can be winning or losing, it still doesn't matter... They are still cheaters, gaining an unfair advantage that the opposing team has to overcome.

True. They cheated. Who said they didn't?

And they were punished.

So to continue to suggest they cheated when

a.) you ignore the punishment.
b.) you don't know exactly how much that helped them and
c.) you ignore that other teams cheat

suggests you have a real axe to grind.



I udnerstand logic very well and it is quite obvious you don't. We are disputing the axioms, not the logic itself... it is quite obvious who doesn't know what they are arguing...

Well, for a person who jumped into the middle of an argument, you apparently don't understand context. Otherwise, you would have known why I made the statement that I did.

But thanks for playing along. :)

[SultanOfSix]

tykedoe1's argumental technique:

1) Invent an argument.
2) Apply it to the opposition because he's apparently illiterate.
3) Rebut his own invented argument, then claim victory.

There's a word for this: it's called a STRAWMAN.

Go away you illiterate, blind Pats homer.

[khiladi]

One more time for you:


He obviously isn't. Your whole argument is predicated on the 'absurd' notion that one cannot measure 'unfair advantage'... strange...

Why would the NFL have a rule in the first place regarding an unmeasurable factor?


If you can't see how the circular logic your engaging in, then you don't understand logic worth squat.

How does the NFL set a rule for taping signals being an 'unfair advantage' when you claim that it is not possible to measure it? How do you argue it qualifies as an unfair an advantage? According to your logic, this can only be measured by a team losing or winning, but them, to borrow your own words:

You're making my argument for me.

You only point to that because the Patriots WON. You too understand that "unfair advantage" has to result in a win, that's why you reference the Patriots' wins!!! And while they may have cheated and may have benefited from cheating, there's no way on earth you can prove that that win was a producting of taping. It's simply impossible to do especially since no one action wins any football game. That's my point. And it is perfectly logical.

It is quite inderstandeable why you made upon some ridiculous argument that the NFL punished the 'illegality' of the act, but not the act itself. That still doesn't answer the question of how the act becomes illegal in the first place. I know this may be hard, but follow me for a moment Mr. Logic:

1.

It is not because the Patriots won, it is HOW they won that can give weight to the idea that they got an unfair advantage, which caused them to win. In this case, we aren't talking about whether they got an unfair advantage or not, which they clearly did, but whether or not the unfair advantage impacted the outcome of the game. There is what is called an issue of degrees when committing a wrong. It has all the relevance in forming a judgement about a matter? Human beings possess discursive reasoning, meaning all their judgements are predicated on evidence, not absolute fact.

Your living in an imaginary world... and you don't understand basic logic...

[tyke1doe]

tykedoe1's argumental technique:

1) Invent an argument.
2) Apply it to the opposition because he's apparently illiterate.
3) Rebut his own invented argument, then claim victory.

There's a word for this: it's called a STRAWMAN.

Go away you illiterate, blind Pats homer.

Well, then you're providing a lot of straw.


Your argument is vacuous, because what JJ did wasn't illegal, nor was it considered cheating by the NFL, nor was it like what Bellicheat did. But, let's not let facts get in the way of your Cheats defending agenda.

You're diversionary tactics are legendary. Your stupidity is phenomenal as well, because cheating isn't applicable either in JJ's case, and neither is illegality. Cheating is defined to be giving yourself an "unfair" advantage over an opponent. And if everyone in the league could have done it because it wasn't against the rules, then it can't be considered cheating.

Now, either your logic is askewed or I correctly interpreted you to suggest that cheating is only cheating if it's illegal.

You can't run from your own logic, Mr. Scarecrow. :D

[SultanOfSix]

Now, either your logic is askewed or I correctly interpreted you to suggest that cheating is only cheating if it's illegal.

You can't run from your own logic, Mr. Scarecrow. :D

No. You're just illiterate.

You quoted me, and you still can't read what I wrote.

[Bach]

No. You're just illiterate.
.

I've seen tyke on these boards for years.

I can vouch that he is quite literate.

[tyke1doe]

How does the NFL set a rule for taping signals being an 'unfair advantage' when you claim that it is not possible to measure it? How do you argue it qualifies as an unfair an advantage? According to your logic, this can only be measured by a team losing or winning, but them, to borrow your own words:

I never said it is impossible to measure whether they gained an unfair advantage.

I said that it is impossible to measure whether the "unfair advantage" resulted in a win.

It's the same as saying that an official's blown call - no matter how critical - determined whether a team won or loss.

Does an official's blown call give one team or the other an unfair advantage? YES!

Does an official's blown call determine whether a team wins or loses a game? NO!

Why?

Because a win is a product of a number of things that go on in a game.

If you can't understand what I'm saying, then, yes, something is very wrong with your ability to understand logic and reason.




It is quite inderstandeable why you made upon some ridiculous argument that the NFL punished the 'illegality' of the act, but not the act itself. That still doesn't answer the question of how the act becomes illegal in the first place. I know this may be hard, but follow me for a moment Mr. Logic:

Do you mean "understandable"? ;)

But let's continue ...



1.

It is not because the Patriots won, it is HOW they won that can give weight to the idea that they got an unfair advantage, which caused them to win. In this case, we aren't talking about whether they got an unfair advantage or not, which they clearly did, but whether or not the unfair advantage impacted the outcome of the game. There is what is called an issue of degrees when committing a wrong. It has all the relevance in forming a judgement about a matter? Human beings possess discursive reasoning, meaning all their judgements are predicated on evidence, not absolute fact.

Your living in an imaginary world... and you don't understand basic logic...


Now you're contradicting yourself.


I thought the unfair advantage argument is measured by whether something falls within the rules or not, and winning or losing is irrelevant to it. The practical measurement is established by an agreed upon code of conduct, not by the outcome of the game. ...

It is not because the Patriots won, it is HOW they won that can give weight to the idea that they got an unfair advantage, which caused them to win.


And you question my logic. :rolleyes:

Make up your mind, will you. If the unfair advantage resulted in winning, it's not irrelevant. It is very much relevant.

And that's my point. Thank you, again.

If it can be determined that the unfair advantage produced a win, Goodell could have made the Pats forfeit the game. But I suspect any reasonable thinking person would understand that he wouldn't do that because it can't be determined whether that "unfair advantage" actually produced a win.

At best, we can say that the Pats violated the rules and were punished accordingly.

Yes, cheating gives an unfair advantage. But how much and whether it contributes to the win, we don't know. That's my point. And if you had any ounce of understanding context, you would have picked that up by now.

But here's where you entered this debate:

SoS - Pats are cheaters.
Tyke1doe - You're still bitter aren't you?
SoS - Yes, because they're cheaters.
Tyke1doe - So are the Cowboys because they cheated. Jimmy Johnson even admits they did.
SoS - That's not cheating because it wasn't illegal.
Tyke1doe - So illegality defines cheating. Well, Cowboys players admitted taking drugs during their playing days.
SoS - ignores that argument. Starts to complain about too much straw in this thread. ;)
Khiladi - we're questioning your axioms not your logic. (Of course, then you contradict yourself by questioning my logic. You don't know what you're arguing in this thread. But that happens when you join an argument in midstream.)
Tyke1doe - my statement was predicated on SoS's response. See above.
Khiladi - continues to argue a point not in dispute and then contradicts himself by saying the issue of winning is irrelevant to the cheating incident and then arguing that the cheating helped the Pats to win.

If this is the type of logic they taught you in school, you'd better sue for a refund. ;) :D

P.S., the NFL does have a rule that speaks to this matter as to when an action directly impacts a game and its outcome.

Let's say it's 4 seconds left and T.O. catches a pass and is running for what is sure to be a TD. And a Giant comes off the sidelines and tackles T.O. before he scores.

If I'm not mistaken, there is a provision within NFL rules that would award T.O./Dallas with a touchdown.

Is the action by the Giants player not in the game cheating?

Yes.

Why? Because he's not suppose to be on the field and interfering with the play.

So in that case, the NFL can award a victory because the action had a DIRECT impact on the game and was not the product of human error - in the case of a blown call by an official.

When the action is directly linked to a situation which determines whether a game is won or loss, this rule proves that the NFL can take appropriate action.

But in the case of "cheating by stealing signals," all you can say is that it gives a team an "unfair advantage" and even then, you can't be sure because there's no way to determine that definitely.

And as Jimmy Johnson said, the Cowboys used to cheat too, but they didn't see any advantage of doing so. Simply put, they cheated but they didn't receive an unfair advantage by doing so.

My points are simple and very logical - if you don't have a red, white and blue axe to grind. ;) :D

[tyke1doe]

I've seen tyke on these boards for years.

I can vouch that he is quite literate.

Believe me, when certain posters call me illiterate, it's quite the compliment. :D

By the way, "illiterate" means not being able to read (literally) or write (literally).

Kind of ironic that people who speak/type so eloquently about literacy and logic don't even know the basic meaning of words, much less how to appropriately use them. ;) :D

[tyke1doe]

No. You're just illiterate.

You quoted me, and you still can't read what I wrote.

You're a doodey head.

No, you're a doodey head.

Uh, well, you're a bigger doodey head. :lmao:

[Chocolate Lab]

I never said it is impossible to measure whether they gained an unfair advantage.

I said that it is impossible to measure whether the "unfair advantage" resulted in a win.
Why in the world does that matter, Tyke?

It's like saying that if I'm running against you in the Olympics, and you're clearly faster than me, you can take steroids or even jump the gun.

Does that makes sense? Of course not.

Cheating is cheating. Whether they would have beaten the Jets without it makes no difference. Why do you think rules were made against it in the first place if it didn't create an advantage?

[SultanOfSix]

Believe me, when certain posters call me illiterate, it's quite the compliment. :D

By the way, "illiterate" means not being able to read (literally) or write (literally).

Kind of ironic that people who speak/type so eloquently about literacy and logic don't even know the basic meaning of words, much less how to appropriately use them. ;) :D


Your argument is vacuous, because what JJ did wasn't illegal, nor was it considered cheating by the NFL, nor was it like what Bellicheat did. But, let's not let facts get in the way of your Cheats defending agenda.


Your stupidity is phenomenal as well, because cheating isn't applicable either in JJ's case, and neither is illegality. Cheating is defined to be giving yourself an "unfair" advantage over an opponent. And if everyone in the league could have done it because it wasn't against the rules, then it can't be considered cheating.



Now, either your logic is askewed or I correctly interpreted you to suggest that cheating is only cheating if it's illegal.

QED. You're just illiterate.

[khiladi]

I never said it is impossible to measure whether they gained an unfair advantage.

I said that it is impossible to measure whether the "unfair advantage" resulted in a win.


Maybe you should try and comprehend a thought, before posting incessant dribble, that is smacking of circular logic and faulty axioms. How about I just quote your own words for you:



To your unfair advantage argument, I said you can't practically evaluate that apart from winning. If you lose, you didn't gain an unfair advantage in any practical way because you still lost.


It is right there in your face, i.e. you can't evaluate unfair advantage, because an unfair advantage is quantified only by winning. SO tell me, how does the NFL qualify something as an unfair advantage, when, according to you, it can only be quanlified by a team winning?
Your telling me that it is only an unfair advantage when teams win. You further testified to your own circular logic by saying that there are too many factors in a game that impact a game, so to argue something as an unfair advantage causing a win is absurd. You contardict yourself...

Your projecting yourself as witty, when it fact, your only lookin like an idiot.. Your so wrong, no amount of back-tracking can change this fact...

SO then, once again, we are back to the same question:

How does the NFL set a rule for taping signals being an 'unfair advantage' when you claim that it is not possible to measure it?

Not only do you not understand logic, you obviously can't even read properly...

[tyke1doe]

QED. You're just illiterate.

You're a doodey head.

No, you're a doodey head.

Well, you're a bigger doodey head.

Are we done now? :D

[tyke1doe]

Maybe you should try and comprehend a thought, before posting incessant dribble, that is smacking of circular logic and faulty axioms. How about I just quote your own words for you:


I like how you worked "incessant dribble" in a sentence. I'm impressed. ;) :D


It is right there in your face, i.e. you can't evaluate unfair advantage, because an unfair advantage is quantified only by winning. SO tell me, how does the NFL qualify something as an unfair advantage, when, according to you, it can only be quanlified by a team winning?

I think you meant "quantified." ;)

But I'm glad you asked the question. And I'll be more than happy to explain to you once again. :)

You do understand what the term "practically" means, don't you, as in what does gaining an unfair advantage mean "practically"?

Law and rules are constructed based in part on theory. The theory here is if a team gains an "unfair advantage" it could help the team win. (But we know in many cases stealing signals does not work, hence, Jimmy Johnson's comments.)

But practically, you can't prove that. The only thing you can prove is that a team cheated and violated the spirit of competition and the integrity of the game.
And that is why the Pats were punished, IMO, and rightly so.
Note Goodell's comments after he handed down his punishment for the Patriots.

“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,” Commissioner Roger Goodell wrote in a letter to the Patriots.


But beyond that (that cheating undermines the spirit of fair play and honest competition), "unfair advantage" has no practical value because you can't determine if the cheating resulted in wins. And that's what fans suggest when they say Pats should ...

a.) forfeit the Jets win and
b.) have asterisks assigned to their previous Super Bowl wins, as Donovan McNabb joked.

And since you can't prove that, you're back to theory.

See how simple that was? :)




Your telling me that it is only an unfair advantage when teams win. You further testified to your own circular logic by saying that there are too many factors in a game that impact a game, so to argue something as an unfair advantage causing a win is absurd. You contardict yourself...

I think you mean You're as in "you're" telling me and "contradict" as in "You contradict yourself." . ;)

First, I'm telling you that you can't measure "unfair advantage" practically unless you're talking about how it impacts a win or loss. And there's no way to know that.
Now, if the NFL were involved in betting, it would be a different story because then point spread would be an issue, i.e., an unfair advantage keeping a game close. But even then, you'd have to prove that.

Second, I am not contradicting myself at all. My argument is this:

Because winning a football game involves so many viables, it is impossible to determine if cheating itself contributed to a win. And, practically speaking, the reason why we're even having this argument is because the Pats are winning.
If the Pats were not winning, we wouldn't be having a discussion about how cheating benefited the team. We would know it had no benefit. Now, some simply "suspect" that it had a benefit.



Your projecting yourself as witty, when it fact, your only lookin like an idiot.. Your so wrong, no amount of back-tracking can change this fact...

I think you mean "looking" and "You're so wrong." And I'm the idiot. :lmao2:


SO then, once again, we are back to the same question:

How does the NFL set a rule for taping signals being an 'unfair advantage' when you claim that it is not possible to measure it?

Again, you omit the critical word "practical."

But I'll answer the question again.

It does so based on the theory that it could help a team gain an advantage. And to perserve the integrity of the game and the spirit of fair competition, it prohibits taping signals.

It is not saying that it WILL result in a win. The league is saying that in theory it could and, thus, it is prohibited.

But to argue that cheating causes a win as you did ...

It is not because the Patriots won, it is HOW they won that can give weight to the idea that they got an unfair advantage, which caused them to win.

can not be determined.



Not only do you not understand logic, you obviously can't even read properly...

Well, my reading comprehension is about as great as your spelling.

Here's a stone. Aim towards your glass house. ;) :D

[khiladi]

Law and rules are constructed based in part on theory. The theory here is if a team gains an "unfair advantage" it could help the team win. (But we know in many cases stealing signals does not work, hence, Jimmy Johnson's comments.)

And if you understood a basic thing about discursive reasoning, you would have known that all knowledge is based in part on theory. None of your side-tracking is relevant, and I am going to quote you one more time:


To your unfair advantage argument, I said you can't practically evaluate that apart from winning. If you lose, you didn't gain an unfair advantage in any practical way because you still lost.


No matter what, it is right there in your face. Your wrong...

You said that the only way you can evaluate something as an unfair advanatge is if the team wins. That leads us to certain questions, as per your own 'logic':

1.

How does the NFL quantify something as an unfair advantage if they can't measure it?

2.

Where in the NFL rulebook is there a condition that unfair advantage is predicated on a win? Teams can get an unfair advantage and still lose. Winning does not necessitate that a team hasn't gotten an unfair advantage. It simply means that even in the case of cheating, the loser still lost.

3.

A team can get an unfair advatange, and win because of it.


You do understand what the term "practically" means, don't you, as in what does gaining an unfair advantage mean "practically"?


Yes I do, and that still doesn't change a single thing. According to your logic, you can't prove that an unfair advantage took place 'practically'. The only way to prove it 'practically' is if the team won. But then, you say that there are too many things to effect the outcome of a game, so that one cannot even prove an unfair advantage 'practically' even if the team won.

So then really, an 'unfair advantage' has absolutely no meaning, and the NFL just made it up. So tell me ocne again, how can the NFL calling something an unfair advantage, if, according to you it can't be proven that it helped the team win, and your definition of unfair advantage is only when a team wins?


Well, my reading comprehension is about as great as your spelling.


People only talk about spelling in the internet world when they have nothing to stand on. Yes, your axioms suck and are flawed.

No amount of back-tracking can change the fact that you engage in circular reasoning.

[tyke1doe]

And if you understood a basic thing about discursive reasoning, you would have known that all knowledge is based in part on theory. None of your side-tracking is relevant, and I am going to quote you one more time:

Oooh, discursive reasoning. Even more impressed. :)

Of course, if you had not entered the conversation in midstream, you would have a better understanding of the argument.

But this hasn't been the first time you jumped into a conversation and segregated points from a context.







How does the NFL quantify something as an unfair advantage if they can't measure it?

Already addressed this.


Where in the NFL rulebook is there a condition that unfair advantage is predicated on a win? Teams can get an unfair advantage and still lose. Winning does not necessitate that a team hasn't gotten an unfair advantage. It simply means that even in the case of cheating, the loser still lost.

Correct. So how much of an unfair advantage was it?


A team can get an unfair advatange, and win because of it.

True, but how do you prove that the win was a result of cheating?



So then really, an 'unfair advantage' has absolutely no meaning, and the NFL just made it up. So tell me ocne again, how can the NFL calling something an unfair advantage, if, according to you it can't be proven that it helped the team win, and your definition of unfair advantage is only when a team wins?

It does have meaning. But that meaning is found in the fact that it violates the rules of fair play and honest competition. It's not that it produces wins, at least not in any definitive way that we can measure and conclude with certainty.

And, again, that is my point. And that is my response to those who suggest that the Pats should forefeit games and that their Super Bowl wins should contain asterisks.





People only talk about spelling in the internet world when they have nothing to stand on. Yes, your axioms suck and are flawed.

And people often misspell words because they are careless with their use of the language, as they are in their logic. ;)


No amount of back-tracking can change the fact that you engage in circular reasoning.


And no amount of employing the term "discursive" obscures the fact that you entered an argument in midstream and ignored basic context. :p:

Shall we continue this "you're a doodey head, no, you're a doodey head" argument? :D

[khiladi]

:cool: :DAlready addressed this.

No you didn't. What you said is that unfair advantage is only unfair advantage when you win. Since there are too many factors that outcome a game, then it is impossible to prove an unfair advantage. What this means logically is that, according to you, the words unfair advanatge have no meaning 'practically'. That is the stupidity of your logic. Further, this is precisely why you tried to make a distinction between the illegality of the act and unfair advantage. You wanted to argue that unfair advantage cannot be proven.

Really, I want to know how does the NFL even quantify unfair advanatge, when according to you, it isn't even measurable practically? Teling me you answered it, doesn't mean you answered it. Telling me I ignored basic context now that you realized the fallacy of your argument, doesn't mean you answered it.

Correct. So how much of an unfair advantage was it?

I know I'm correct. It is your circular reasoning that is not. We are talking about your flawed position, not mine.

True, but how do you prove that the win was a result of cheating?

Well, that is a matter of degree isn't it. We can't prove any scientific theory absolutely, but it becomes theory because the empirical evidence attests to it. If there were tapes, then we can make an educated guess, but since Godel burned them, we will never know.

It does have meaning. But that meaning is found in the fact that it violates the rules of fair play and honest competition. It's not that it produces wins, at least not in any definitive way that we can measure and conclude with certainty.

It is called circumstantial evidence. We can't prove anything absolutely, but we can surely prove it significantly influenced the outcome of a game to the extent it is called an unfair advantage. This is the exact meaning of unfair.

And, again, that is my point. And that is my response to those who suggest that the Pats should forefeit games and that their Super Bowl wins should contain asterisks.

Their Super Bowl wins should contain astericks. They won them by a combined 10 points. The Eagles accused them in the second-half of knowing the plays they were calling.

And no amount of employing the term "discursive" obscures the fact that you entered an argument in midstream and ignored basic context. :p:

That is the latest argument, that I ignored basic context. No, you were wrong, and you can't admit it, so now you blame it allegedly on context. I know exactly what the context is, and your logic sucks.

Shall we continue this "you're a doodey head, no, you're a doodey head" argument? :D

It's like a defense mechanism that prevents you from admitting your wrong. That and the following:

:D :lmao2: :rolleyes: :cool: :eek: :mad:

other childish retorts...

[tyke1doe]

Edited for redundancy

You're a doodey head.
No, you're a doodey head.
No, you're a bigger doodey head.

You finish now? :D

[nathanlt]

The Patriots cheated.

They were stupid enough to cheat against the Jets, whom they would have beaten anyway.

They deserve to have the "win" against the Jets reflected as a loss on their record.

They deserve to forfeit both first round draft picks.

They should have never been allowed to participate in the playoffs.

That is, unless cheating is endorsed by the NFL.

This 'perfect season' will NEVER count.