‘I’ll never be over being cheated out of the Super Bowl’

[murf74 461]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/marshall-faulk-brings-spygate-ll-never-over-being-182812366--nfl.html

 

"Am I over the loss? Yeah, I'm over the loss. But I'll never be over being cheated out of the Super Bowl. That's a different story," Faulk said, according to a story by Tom Curran of Comcast SportsNet New England. "I can understand losing a Super Bowl, that's fine . . . But how things happened and what took place. Obviously, the commissioner gets to handle things how he wants to handle them but if they wanted us to shut up about what happened, show us the tapes. Don't burn 'em."

[tikigods 76]

Marshall Faulk is the new Tim Brown?

 

I can't wait until someone from the Baltimore Colts calls foul against Joe Namath.

[edjr 5,567]

[e-factor 13]

Marshall Faulk is the new Tim Brown?

 

I can't wait until someone from the Baltimore Colts calls foul against Joe Namath.

 

But Joe Namath didn't cheat..............

[GreenTD 56]

Even though Marshall Faulk has always been a classy individual & is right on so many levels with his words, all these sour grapes comments years after the fact are growing tiresome. I'm sure the reporter stuck the mic in his face & asked him the question, but all of these past transgressions are becoming more of the storyline this week than the actual game.

[Lackman 0]

Screw Faulk. At least he got a ring. Now, let's consider the screw job the Seahawks got....

 

 

Oh, come on. You all knew this thread would head in that direction sooner or later.

[e-factor 13]

Screw Faulk. At least he got a ring. Now, let's consider the screw job the Seahawks got....

 

 

Oh, come on. You all knew this thread would head in that direction sooner or later.

 

The 2005 Super Bowl is the only Super Bowl I didn't watch. Was on vacation in Newport Coast, great day outside and didn't really care who won, had better things to do etc. Always thought the complaining by Seahawk fans was just sour grapes. Then a few years back, I was bored and channel surfing and they were showing the game on the NFL network. That really was a screw job by the officials. When you see some of those calls, it truly makes you wonder if a couple of those boys were on the take. How can you call holding when there isn't anything even close to it? Calling a penalty on Hasselbeck for making a tackle was my personal favorite. Horrible............

[RoadLizard 73]

Even though Marshall Faulk has always been a classy individual & is right on so many levels with his words, all these sour grapes comments years after the fact are growing tiresome. I'm sure the reporter stuck the mic in his face & asked him the question, but all of these past transgressions are becoming more of the storyline this week than the actual game.

 

It wasnt just Spygate, it was that the Pats shouldnt have even been there since the Raiders beat them in the AFC title game. Or, at least they "technically" beat them. The famous "fvck" rule that we havent seen called ONCE since then either, rather ironically.

[GreenTD 56]

Screw Faulk. At least he got a ring. Now, let's consider the screw job the Seahawks got....

 

 

Oh, come on. You all knew this thread would head in that direction sooner or later.

 

Haha! Nice work hijacking the thread Lackman. I understand the distain that Faulk has from that Superbowl & the Seahawks & their fans have as well. The fact that Faulk brings it up as well as Tim Brown did earlier, it paints them in a negative light in which they've garnered plenty of respect due to their great careers.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

It wasnt just Spygate, it was that the Pats shouldnt have even been there since the Raiders beat them in the AFC title game. Or, at least they "technically" beat them. The famous "fvck" rule that we havent seen called ONCE since then either, rather ironically.

 

The tuck rule was used at least 3 times in this year's playoffs.

[GreenTD 56]

The tuck rule was used at least 3 times in this year's playoffs.

 

Yes, but that was the 1st time the rule was enforced yet 99.9% of the fans/coaches/players didn't know the rule existed or it's hazy interpretation.

[kmbryant09 1]

The tuck rule was used at least 3 times in this year's playoffs.

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 .

[FantasyBowl33 0]

Yes, but that was the 1st time the rule was enforced yet 99.9% of the fans/coaches/players knew the rule existed or it's hazy interpretation.

First, it's a bad rule but it was called correctly. Reason why Pat fans don't feel guilty about it ......The first time it was enforced was against the Patriots that same year Vs the Jets!

 

Funny you never hear anyone complaining about the call that game?

 

Also Woodson hit Brady in the head prior to hitting the ball away. Should have been 15 yards plus's fresh set of downs. Pats maybe score 7 and OT not needed.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

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 .

 

That was a bad call by the refs in the Broncos game. I thought the refs were bad in that game on several occassions and the review of that play was a big blunder.

[GreenTD 56]

That was a bad call by the refs in the Broncos game. I thought the refs were bad in that game on several occassions and the review of that play was a big blunder.

 

Ditto. Even Mike Periera thought the call should've went the other way as opposed to how the refs ruled it even after reviewing the play.

[parrot 789]

It wasnt just Spygate, it was that the Pats shouldnt have even been there since the Raiders beat them in the AFC title game. Or, at least they "technically" beat them. The famous "fvck" rule that we havent seen called ONCE since then either, rather ironically.

 

You're right, I haven't seen it called "ONCE", I've seen it called many times.

[Dan 59]

The fact is . . . the NFL office (Roger Goodell) did the absolute worst thing that they could do. They destroyed all the tapes. Whether or not there was something to hide on those tapes, they opened the NFL and the Patriots to unending speculation. You don't have to like that; but the NFL didn't choose a path that would put to rest any continuation of doubt and speculation. On the contrary, they opened up the floodgates.

 

Read what Marshall Faulk says. I think really that's the crux of where he's at.

[tikigods 76]

But Joe Namath didn't cheat..............

 

The Patriots did not cheat in the Super Bowl.

 

Bill Callahan did not "throw" the Super Bowl.

 

Joe Namath was a drunk. He was probably popping greenies.

[ralphster 274]

Read what Marshall Faulk says. I think really that's the crux of where he's at.

 

Agreed.

[Houston Texans 10]

The Patriots did not cheat in the Super Bowl.

Wrong. In the day and age of technological cheating, they're guilty. Period. BB & the Pats admitted that they had cheated, after the SB wins. This doesn't mean they didn't cheat during their SB wins, just that the NFL let them get away with it, then "conveniently" desroyed the evidence of their cheating.

 

If you want to asterisk a (possible) Ravens SB win because there is suspicion that Lewis used an illegal supplement, you can't complain that the Pats SB wins get questioned when they admitted to cheating.

[parrot 789]

Wrong. In the day and age of technological cheating, they're guilty. Period. BB & the Pats admitted that they had cheated, after the SB wins. This doesn't mean they didn't cheat during their SB wins, just that the NFL let them get away with it, then "conveniently" desroyed the evidence of their cheating.

 

If you want to asterisk a (possible) Ravens SB win because there is suspicion that Lewis used an illegal supplement, you can't complain that the Pats SB wins get questioned when they admitted to cheating.

 

No they didn't.

[Houston Texans 10]

No they didn't.

Yes, they did.

"I misinterpreted the rule . . . I take responsibility for it. Even though I felt there was a gray area in the rule and I misinterpreted the rule, that was my mistake and we've been penalized for it.''

LINK

[parrot 789]

Yes, they did.

"I misinterpreted the rule . . . I take responsibility for it. Even though I felt there was a gray area in the rule and I misinterpreted the rule, that was my mistake and we've been penalized for it.''

LINK

 

I don't see the word "cheated" there, I see the word "mistake". He says he misinterpreted the rule, and even that is debatable as far as the literal wording of the rule - thus the "gray area". He also says he felt like it was not a big deal regardless since they never violated the intent of the rule, which was that any information gathered not be used during the playing of the game during which the information was gathered. That is what he would have considered a genuine violation of the intent of the rules, and he says they never did that.

[jaxjag 43]

It wasnt just Spygate, it was that the Pats shouldnt have even been there since the Raiders beat them in the AFC title game. Or, at least they "technically" beat them. The famous "fvck" rule that we havent seen called ONCE since then either, rather ironically.

 

You don't watch much football.

 

And your facts are wrong. The tuck rule game wasn't for the Conference championship.

[jaxjag 43]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/marshall-faulk-brings-spygate-ll-never-over-being-182812366--nfl.html

 

Faulk sounds like a crybaby. The Rams lost that game because the Patriots played them very physically, which is the best way to stop a "finesse" team. Give Belichick credit for knowing what he could do (get away with) defensively...

 

The officials "letting them play" in the post season is nothing new. Personally, I think the game should be called the same way all the time but it is what it is. In this year's Sunday Night finale (Cowboys/Redskins), a flag wasn't thrown until (almost) the 4th quarter. These were two highly penalized teams. If it were the regular season, the ending of the 49ers/Falcons game would have drawn a pass interference call with Atlanta 1st and goal on the 5 with a minute to play. Will we have to listen to Roddy White talk about being cheated in 2024?

[e-factor 13]

I don't see the word "cheated" there, I see the word "mistake". He says he misinterpreted the rule, and even that is debatable as far as the literal wording of the rule - thus the "gray area". He also says he felt like it was not a big deal regardless since they never violated the intent of the rule, which was that any information gathered not be used during the playing of the game during which the information was gathered. That is what he would have considered a genuine violation of the intent of the rules, and he says they never did that.

 

So they cheated. Misinterpreted a rule that no other team did. Didn't think it was a big deal because he didn't want the super bowl wins tainted. They have not won since. Cheated...........

[murf74 461]

Faulk sounds like a crybaby. The Rams lost that game because the Patriots played them very physically, which is the best way to stop a "finesse" team. Give Belichick credit for knowing what he could do (get away with) defensively...

 

The officials "letting them play" in the post season is nothing new. Personally, I think the game should be called the same way all the time but it is what it is. In this year's Sunday Night finale (Cowboys/Redskins), a flag wasn't thrown until (almost) the 4th quarter. These were two highly penalized teams. If it were the regular season, the ending of the 49ers/Falcons game would have drawn a pass interference call with Atlanta 1st and goal on the 5 with a minute to play. Will we have to listen to Roddy White talk about being cheated in 2024?

 

That combined with cheating gets you a 3pt win

[tikigods 76]

That combined with cheating gets you a 3pt win

 

Just like the refs cheating Seattle out of a Super Bowl over Pittsburg.

[tikigods 76]

Wrong. In the day and age of technological cheating, they're guilty. Period. BB & the Pats admitted that they had cheated, after the SB wins. This doesn't mean they didn't cheat during their SB wins, just that the NFL let them get away with it, then "conveniently" desroyed the evidence of their cheating.

 

If you want to asterisk a (possible) Ravens SB win because there is suspicion that Lewis used an illegal supplement, you can't complain that the Pats SB wins get questioned when they admitted to cheating.

 

You, sir, are a focking idiot.

 

There was absolutely no proof, nor did the NFL conclude, that the Patriots cheated during a Super Bowl win. If you have "proof" of it, please post a link...otherwise shut the fock up and go back to crying over getting your ass handed to you TWICE by the Patriots

 

Whiner.

[ralphster 274]

Are you suffering withdrawal so badly that you troll every anti NE post on the entire board? It's like the regular season ended and suddenly the chuds from the geek board have invaded the main bored. NE/BB+Brady CHEATED. During that time they also put together perhaps the most impressive win streak ever and won a lot of focking games and titles. Tit for tat right? Accept it and move on (and stop focking posting back refuting sh!t every focking time anyone says something bad about the focking Pats!).

 

When did this board become a contest to see who can have the last word/post? Petty shite like this is part of the reason traffic drops off. Pitiful.

[tikigods 76]

Are you suffering withdrawal so badly that you troll every anti NE post on the entire board? It's like the regular season ended and suddenly the chuds from the geek board have invaded the main bored. NE/BB+Brady CHEATED. During that time they also put together perhaps the most impressive win streak ever and won a lot of focking games and titles. Tit for tat right? Accept it and move on (and stop focking posting back refuting sh!t every focking time anyone says something bad about the focking Pats!).

 

When did this board become a contest to see who can have the last word/post? Petty shite like this is part of the reason traffic drops off. Pitiful.

 

I like when you can't back up a stupid statement with fact, you have to resort to crying like a hurt schoolgirl. Back it up with fact, Ralphie otherwise stfu and quit being a troll.

[ralphster 274]

you win douche. last word - bank it!

[jaxjag 43]

That combined with cheating gets you a 3pt win

 

New England was a heavy underdog. Essentially a rookie QB; Held the "Greatest Show on Turf" to 17 points; The defensive play is why the won.

 

Pittsburgh has won three of it SBs by 4 points. Do you discount those as well?

[murf74 461]

New England was a heavy underdog. Essentially a rookie QB; Held the "Greatest Show on Turf" to 17 points; The defensive play is why the won.

 

Pittsburgh has won three of it SBs by 4 points. Do you discount those as well?

 

Only if they used videotape to illegally steal signals.

 

You seem to have a memory block on the cheating concept. The reason these superbowl "wins" are being discounted by many more than just me.... is because of cheating, and despite cheating only managed to win by FGs.

 

Pats fans seem to be only ones who won't acknowledge this admitted cheating affected pretty much all BillICheat games prior to them getting busted. No reason to think he would do it in the regular season....but superbowls and playoffs are off limits.

 

Sorry until your Pats win a superbowl post spygate nobody is going to take them seriously

[FlaHawker 24]

Only if they used videotape to illegally steal signals.

 

You seem to have a memory block on the cheating concept. The reason these superbowl "wins" are being discounted by many more than just me.... is because of cheating, and despite cheating only managed to win by FGs.

 

Pats fans seem to be only ones who won't acknowledge this admitted cheating affected pretty much all BillICheat games prior to them getting busted. No reason to think he would do it in the regular season....but superbowls and playoffs are off limits.

 

Sorry until your Pats win a superbowl post spygate nobody is going to take them seriously

Says the guy who refuses to admit Bill Leavy handed the Steelers a SB on a silver platter.

[jaxjag 43]

Says the guy who refuses to admit Bill Leavy handed the Steelers a SB on a silver platter.

 

Don't pick on a blind man!

 

I saw Murf collecting nickels in a tin cup this afternoon. One lens of his shades were black, the other yellow. He doesn't see anything else.

[tikigods 76]

you win douche. last word - bank it!

 

Doosh.

 

You come into a thread to say the Patriots cheated to win a Super Bowl...no evidence...no links.

 

Loser.

 

Back under your bridge, troll boy.

[tikigods 76]

Only if they used videotape to illegally steal signals.

 

You seem to have a memory block on the cheating concept. The reason these superbowl "wins" are being discounted by many more than just me.... is because of cheating, and despite cheating only managed to win by FGs.

 

Pats fans seem to be only ones who won't acknowledge this admitted cheating affected pretty much all BillICheat games prior to them getting busted. No reason to think he would do it in the regular season....but superbowls and playoffs are off limits.

 

Sorry until your Pats win a superbowl post spygate nobody is going to take them seriously

 

Your focking team won a Super Bowl over Seattle because a REF cheated.

 

Wow...you people are focking hilarious.

[murf74 461]

Says the guy who refuses to admit Bill Leavy handed the Steelers a SB on a silver platter.

 

But they didnt cheat. Officiating isn't the same as a team flat out cheating.

 

Leavy admitted to blowing 2 penalties one of which was on Hasselback after he threw an INT. Big deal.

 

So Pit benefits from some calls in a game, but they didnt cheat. Seattle benefited by playing a one leg qb vs Washington, both situations a team benefits but is not sole reason of win or loss.

 

Your example is irrelevant to subject of cheating

[n_omarley 11]

do people really need to submit proof that the Pats cheated?

 

they were officially penalized for Chrissakes

 

it's more clear than whether or not O.J. slayed those people