<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Feb 2 2008, 11:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Goddamnit, we didn't need an angry, fired up Pats team. What the hell's up with this timing?</div> There's the conspiracy in this whole thing; it gives Belichick an excuse to use the Us versus the world motivational speech <u>yet again</u>.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bearsfan1 @ Feb 3 2008, 03:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Feb 3 2008, 09:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You can't compare cheating to killing. (one leads to death one leads to nothing) Try again Bearsfan. </div> Actually, i can and did compare cheating to killing One leads to death adn the other was the sole reason for 3 NE super bowl wins. </div> You're just bitter that your team is committed to <strike>Tim Wakefield</strike> Wrecks Grossman as the QB of the future.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ehmunro @ Feb 3 2008, 01:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Easterbrook should have consulted someone a little brighter before spinning this fairy tale. Apparently he forgot that the 2002 Superbowl was the first post-9/11 game and the security for the event was tighter than the security at the quadrennial Democratic and Republican presidential conventions. And yet somehow someone that wasn't supposed to be there snuck in with a camera and evaded the notice of dozens and dozens of security people? Sure Greg. It's really convincing. This before addressing the fact that the Rams walkthrough was red zone plays, and they scored during their only trip in the red zone. So obviously the mythical tape didn't help that much.</div> But, Pastabelly's (I mean Pasquarelli) article calling out Specter is okay? Just because, security was really good does not mean it was airtight, flawless, perfect, impenetrable. The Rams lost because of Martz ego. If he wasn't smart enough to take what the Pats were giving him then it sucks to be Mike Martz. I was rooting for NE that day and said then that the Pats were the lesser of 2 evils.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Feb 3 2008, 03:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ehmunro @ Feb 3 2008, 01:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Easterbrook should have consulted someone a little brighter before spinning this fairy tale. Apparently he forgot that the 2002 Superbowl was the first post-9/11 game and the security for the event was tighter than the security at the quadrennial Democratic and Republican presidential conventions. And yet somehow someone that wasn't supposed to be there snuck in with a camera and evaded the notice of dozens and dozens of security people? Sure Greg. It's really convincing. This before addressing the fact that the Rams walkthrough was red zone plays, and they scored during their only trip in the red zone. So obviously the mythical tape didn't help that much.</div> But, Pastabelly's (I mean Pasquarelli) article calling out Specter is okay? Just because, security was really good does not mean it was airtight, flawless, perfect, impenetrable. The Rams lost because of Martz ego. If he wasn't smart enough to take what the Pats were giving him then it sucks to be Mike Martz. I was rooting for NE that day and said then that the Pats were the lesser of 2 evils. </div> Without the proper credentials, there was no chance that you were getting anywhere that Superbowl. Some of you have forgot how deep into lockdown the US went in the months following 9/11. There was simply no chance that a cameraman dodged the platoons of security personnel and police, with a camera, and then sat unnoticed on the field. And the fact remains that the Rams scored on their only red zone possession. So, all told, Easterbrook's fairy tale doesn't pass the smell test, and as the Patriots didn't actually stop the Rams in the red zone, it's far more likely that Gregory's fairy tale is simply that. A tall tale spun by a dimwitted sports writer that didn't bother to check his facts before doing so. If he'd wanted some credibility he should have had his "source" claim that it happened against the Panthers or Eagles, when security was back down to its normal levels. But, he didn't want to just taint a Superbowl win, he wanted the whole kit & kaboodle. And so made the mistake of choosing the one Superbowl where it couldn't have happened.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ehmunro @ Feb 3 2008, 03:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Feb 3 2008, 03:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ehmunro @ Feb 3 2008, 01:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Easterbrook should have consulted someone a little brighter before spinning this fairy tale. Apparently he forgot that the 2002 Superbowl was the first post-9/11 game and the security for the event was tighter than the security at the quadrennial Democratic and Republican presidential conventions. And yet somehow someone that wasn't supposed to be there snuck in with a camera and evaded the notice of dozens and dozens of security people? Sure Greg. It's really convincing. This before addressing the fact that the Rams walkthrough was red zone plays, and they scored during their only trip in the red zone. So obviously the mythical tape didn't help that much.</div> But, Pastabelly's (I mean Pasquarelli) article calling out Specter is okay? Just because, security was really good does not mean it was airtight, flawless, perfect, impenetrable. The Rams lost because of Martz ego. If he wasn't smart enough to take what the Pats were giving him then it sucks to be Mike Martz. I was rooting for NE that day and said then that the Pats were the lesser of 2 evils. </div> Without the proper credentials, there was no chance that you were getting anywhere that Superbowl. Some of you have forgot how deep into lockdown the US went in the months following 9/11. There was simply no chance that a cameraman dodged the platoons of security personnel and police, with a camera, and then sat unnoticed on the field. And the fact remains that the Rams scored on their only red zone possession. So, all told, Easterbrook's fairy tale doesn't pass the smell test, and as the Patriots didn't actually stop the Rams in the red zone, it's far more likely that Gregory's fairy tale is simply that. A tall tale spun by a dimwitted sports writer that didn't bother to check his facts before doing so. If he'd wanted some credibility he should have had his "source" claim that it happened against the Panthers or Eagles, when security was back down to its normal levels. But, he didn't want to just taint a Superbowl win, he wanted the whole kit & kaboodle. And so made the mistake of choosing the one Superbowl where it couldn't have happened. </div> You were at that Super Bowl? Probably not, so you really don't have a clue as to the security measures being taken there. Did you bother to read the article? It says in the second paragraph that the cameradude was a member of the Patriots video staff, was there with the Patriots and stayed behind to video the Rams. Yes, the third paragraph points out that he wasn't asked to show credentials during the Rams walk-through, but if he had already gone through security checkpoints with the Patsies then why would he need to be checked again?
Here is yet another thing I find interesting. According to ESPN's bottom line today, "Goddell would like to talk with Matt Walsh to see if he has any 'information inconsistent' with what the league has." Talk about something that doesn't pass the smell test. Let me translate what Roger the Dodger is saying, "We have already made up our minds based on what Belichick has told us and we just want to give the appearance of being impartial & reasonable."
Ah, sweet justice prevails! The Pats got everything they deserved tonight and more. F the Patriots, and F Belicheat!!!
