kmbryant09

I don't think you understood my point. I wasn't suggesting there was interference on the 49ers 3rd down play. I was saying that on the prior possession, when the Ravens faced a 3rd and 9 on offense, the referees called P.I. on SF - and rightfully so. I think that play had about as much contact as the Crabtree play in the endzone yet the refs did not make the call. Someone argued "they were letting them play", which may be true, but they still blew the whistle against a defender committing P.I. And again, Crabtree doesn't try and push off until he's being hugged by the DB. If you're being held in the endzone, are you supposed to just stand there and just hope that the referees call it? Maybe I'm wrong, but the way I'd interpret those types of plays is whoever initiates the interference is at fault. In other words, if I bear-hug you, you have every right to try and escape that and go make a play on the ball. I'm not arguing this because I'm bitter about my team losing. I root for the Broncos & Colts (Peyton Manning fan), and have literally no rooting interest in the 49ers or the Ravens. I'm just trying to argue against stupidity. Look, if you don't think that amount of contact warrants a penalty on the defense, that's one thing (although then you should also have a problem with the 3rd down P.I. call on SF the series before). But the people who are arguing that the ball was uncatchable, or that refs should swallow their whistle during big plays, or that the 49ers didn't deserve that call because it was a bad play-call are just being down-right stupid. That's what I'm arguing.

Sorry to interject, but Tiki has not admitted that the Patriots cheated. Plain and simple. He keeps throwing around this terminology "violated the rules", etc. and says that they never "C-H-E-A-T-E-D". Now he's saying they didn't "cheat to win a SB". In fact, I tried asking the simple question "did the Patriots cheat" about 6 times to him, and he still hasn't give a Yes or No answer. Yet, the second any news story comes out about Ray Lewis potentially taking a banned substance, Tiki is in uproar claiming that he cheated and they don't deserve the SB.

Well the Ravens' defense only gave up 21 points to the Broncos' offense because they scored on 2 returns. And while we're at it, Baltimore's offense 'only' scored 28 points that day because their defense returned an INT for a TD. Soooooo by that logic - Ben Roethlisberger is a better QB than Peyton Manning?

Thanks, although based on the responses I may be wrong, hah! Like I said, I was just connecting the dots on a very broad level and opening up the idea for discussion. If the Moss/Welker signings did in fact take place LONG before the Patriots were ever informed of any investigation that led to SpyGate, than my theory is completely wrong. But I just remember those 2 moves and such head-scratchers at the time. The Patriots were a defensive-minded, grind-it-out ball club that won on defense, being tougher than the other team, and making big plays in close games. That strategy/execution won them 3 SB's in 5 years. Than they turn around, and acquire (2) sexy players that really fit the mold of the type of players the Patriots typically beat up on. The fact that it happened in the same time frame as the Spygate - I just thought it was worth discussing. And to those people who point to Belichick's thoroughness as a reason why he's probably more innocent than guilty. Really? Bill Belichick seems like a control freak who knows everything that goes on in the organization from what play-call adjustments the secondary makes in the 2nd half, to what type of laundry detergent the cleaning crew washes the uniforms with. It's part of what makes him great. He does everything for a reason. Everything has a purpose. He pushes the envelope further than anyone else when most of the league hasn't even evaluated a certain situation. If Belichik and his crew were taping signs from an illegal point of view (or even a grey area), it was because Bill Belichick thought it would give his team an advantage. It's part of what makes him a great coach, but also what makes it hard to believe that Bill's camera crew "just happened" to be taping signals from the wrong spot.

I'm not whining, bud. Debateable call at best? Considering it's been one of the top storylines for the past 72 hours, I'd go ahead and cross "at best" out. I don't care who played better in the first half, or who called the best plays. I'm simply arguing a call on a single play. Hell, I don't care if the play-call asked Kaepernick to run back into his endzone, hand the ball off to his RB, who then laterals to a WR, who then throws that pass to Crabtree. Illegal contact (holding, pass interference) is illegal contact (holding, pass interference) regardless of how terrible of a play-call the offense ran. That has no bearing as to whether or not the refs should have thrown the flag. I'm not a 49ers fan, and I really didn't care who won the game. This argument holds no merit what-so-ever considering the refs whistled SF for defensive pass-interference on the prior possession. It was a 3rd & 9 play and was a huge call. I think the call was correct, but there was as much, if not more contact on the Crabtree play in the endzone (no call) then there was on the 3rd & 9 play for the Ravens (pass interference).

Add a few others to that list - Krueger - Their best pass rusher this year (13.5 sacks) is a Free Agent and will probably command $6-10 million annually. He's almost definitely gone if Flacco gets paid $$$$$$. Matt Birk - Possibly retiring. Dannell Ellerbee - I think the franchise sees him as Lewis' successor, but he's also a Free Agent. His solid postseason could possibly net him $4-6 million annually. Flacco's contract will put the team right up against the salary cap and will probably force them to cut Boldin. They'd lose Boldin, Reed, Lewis (retirement), Birk (retirement), and almost certainly Krueger. Flacco better play like he's worth $20 million a year if the Ravens want to remain a playoff team.

Agreed. I see nothing wrong with the play. But I fully expect some sort of rule change. Theoretically you could have 10 guys hold 10 defenders (the 11th being the returner), and have the punter just run around for 5 minutes taking time off the clock. It may not have an "easy fix", but an offensive penalty against the team with a lead in the final 2:00 resets the game clock should do the trick.

So you're allowed to hold and interfere as long as it's a difficult catch for the WR, but not if it's an easy catch? . I don't care if it would've taken a S. Holmes type of catch - Holmes made the catch! No matter how easy, how difficult, you can't keep a player from the opportunity to make that play. Also, Crabtree tried pushing off because the DB was basically hugging him. Watch again, Crabtree isn't really physical until he's being blatantly held.

I won't pretend to know the details, but I'm guessing the Patriots knew that the league was looking into the SpyGate scandal well ahead of time. Anyone know when the league decided to begin the investigation compared to the league year and Patriots' acquiring Moss/Welker?

I don't want to turn this into a 1-on-1 conversation, so don't shoot the messenger; but I want to circulate an idea that just came to me. Not sure if I even buy into it, but curious what everyone else's thoughts are. My apologies if this seems a bit all-over-the-place. They were caught in 2006, so 2007 was their first full off-season/regular season without "cheating/using tapes/catching signals". They allegedly taped signals during the Rams' offense running red zone drills in 2003 (I think); and they did of course shut down that great offense. But the Patriots' philosophy took a major shift from 2006-2007 - they went from a defensive team to an offensive juggernaut. Brady went from throwing 220 yards a game and 24 TD's a season to throwing 350 yards and 50 TD's a season. The team traded for Wes Welker and Randy Moss and basically revamped their entire team. Was this major change a result of losing the 2006 AFCCG to the Colts? Possibly. Bu they had still won 3 SB's in the past 5 years, so why change what was working. Anybody think it's possible that the Patriots realized they had lost a defensive advantage by being exposed in SpyGate? And attempted to make up the difference, realizing that they now needed to score more than 17-24 points to win games? I just thought it was interesting when you connect the dots. Why would a team that had won 3 out of the last 5 Superbowls feel the need to completely change their philosophy and the make-up of their team?

How can you call in uncatchable? You admitted there was a hold and Crabtree missed the ball by about a foot. But I agree with most of the other things you mention.

You will probably get blasted by some players for thinking that you can 'predict injuries' - but I agree with you 100%. Some people are just built differently. Some are big & tall, some are short & skinny. Some have stronger bones than others. Some have weaker ligaments than others. I'm not sure 1 or 2 unrelated injuries is enough for me to label a player as injury prone - but there's definitely a pattern to some of these things. I don't like certain guys - like Mathews/McFadden/Vick - will ever remain healthy for sustained periods during their careers.

It was completely ignored in the Ravens/Broncos game. Peyton pump faked, and tried bringing the ball back into his chest as he got sacked. Lost the ball in the process. Every bit as much of a "Tuck Rule" incident as Brady's was a decade ago. Was ruled incomplete once, a fumble once .

I didn't realize you didn't have the reading comprehension to realize I wasn't trying to point out that the Patriots cheated to win a Superbowl. Just that they cheated. Nothing more, nothing less. But I can see how that's a very difficult question for a delusional Pats fan that probably still thinks Brady is clutch .

Yes. Back in week 5. 3+ months ago. In Foxboro. And I'd go out on a limb and say that Manning had been playing a little better since the first month of the season

Yes, which means the Ravens win over the Colts deserves an asterisk, and the win against the Broncos. And since you seem to think those outcomes should be changed, then New England would've been traveling to Denver in that AFCCG. And based on how each fared against the common opponent (Ravens), I don' think Patriots fans have any reason to complain.

You're the one arguing to have this SB win removed from the Ravens if they win or to ban Lewis from the SB because he cheated. I think you may have tried that deer antler spray a few too many times.

Well I'm really rooting for the 49ers, and I really like Kaepernick. But I'm kinda hoping he doesn't have a huge game so that I can still draft him in the 4th+ round next year

Tikigods - I'm with you on this one. Anytime a player or team cheats in order to try and gain a competitive advantage over their competition, we should ban them from Superbowl participation and remove any Superbowls associated with that cheating Oh wait . This just got awkward.

Ahh, I see you're ready to state whether or not somebody cheated

Mom forgot to give you your meds this morning? And why do you keep b!tching to me about the Ray Lewis news? Sorry for asking a simple question, I didn't realize it would be so difficult for you answer

Jeeeeez, I thought Patriots fans were bad when their team was winning; guess I shoulda figured it was just going to get worse when they were losing. I've literally NEVER mentioned anything about taking away Superbowls, or whether or not the Patriots gained a competitive advantage from SpyGate. I've asked a simple question now, a few times, and you haven't provided an answer. You've just whined like an 8-year-old. Let's try 1 more time. Based on the findings & statements from Roger Goodell, which you've even included in this thread, do you think the Patriots cheated? Or didn't cheat? Cheated? Played fair?

Answer my question not yours. Did the Patriots cheat?

Haha the irony of a Patriots fan b!tching about the legitimacy of a Superbowl

Did the Patriots cheat?