PDA

View Full Version : Don Shula on the Patriots


JJJ888
11-09-2007, 10:36 AM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-shula-patriots&prov=ap&type=lgns

Don Shula has been quoted recently stating that, if the Patriots were to go 19-0 this season, their accomplishments would be tainted by the scandal in which they were embroiled at the beginning of the season. (I'm pretty sure you know the one I'm talking about). Shula backed off his statement that the Patriots' record could have an asterisk accompanying it in the record books, but still asserts that the season may be a little bit sullied by this mishap.

First of all, I don't think Shula has any right to be coming out and saying what he is, and I don't think the reputation of the Pats' season will be tainted too much by the allegations, but I still don't think that the NFL handled it correctly. In my mind, the fines and stripping of a draft pick were appropriate, but Bill Belichick the "mastermind" of this plan, deserves to be punished more severely. I'm talking about suspension. And if the Patriots do go undefeated, I think the only way that the spygate scandal is tied in with this season's results is if there is a consensus that Belichick should have been suspended.

I also take exception with the fact that despite the Patriots committing this "crime" this season, they will not punished for it until next season. Look at all other punishments in this league. Suspensions for steroids are not delayed, player misconduct punishments are dealt with as soon as possible. The Patriots' offense occurred during the 2007 season and they should be punished accordingly.

Please keep in mind that I am very biased regarding this situation. I am a Cowboys fan living in New England, and as a result, I have come to detest the Patriots and a lot of their snobby fans (that is not to say that all Pats fans are snobby, just the ones I know who can only say "Tom Brady is a god" and "the Patriots won three Super Bowls"). Clearly I detest the Patriots.

JK17
11-09-2007, 10:43 AM
Well the issue would be, that if they do go 19-0, should there be an asterisk. Yes, the cheating they got caught for would not have helped them yet this year, as the tapes would not have been broken down immediately, probably halftime at the earliest. That being said, say this was a steroid type allegation, another form of cheating. If a statistical record was broken, and the player had been caught cheating that same year, there would be an asterisk next to it.

It's tough to call...On one hand, it seems pretty clear the Patriots are as good as their record and would probably be undefeated, caught cheating or not.

But that being said, we'll never know, and they did get caught cheating this very year. Going to baseball terms, say someone, who had always been a great HR hitter, broke a record, but was caught with HGH earlier in the year. It's possible they could have done it without help, but because they did get caught cheating there's always a cloud of secrecy around it.

I would say there won't be an asterisk, and am not convinced there should be...but they did get caught cheating, so it wouldn't be ridiculous if they did get an asterisk.

scottyboy
11-09-2007, 10:45 AM
doesnt matter, they wont go undefeated

JJJ888
11-09-2007, 10:50 AM
Well the issue would be, that if they do go 19-0, should there be an asterisk. Yes, the cheating they got caught for would not have helped them yet this year, as the tapes would not have been broken down immediately, probably halftime at the earliest. That being said, say this was a steroid type allegation, another form of cheating. If a statistical record was broken, and the player had been caught cheating that same year, there would be an asterisk next to it.

It's tough to call...On one hand, it seems pretty clear the Patriots are as good as their record and would probably be undefeated, caught cheating or not.

But that being said, we'll never know, and they did get caught cheating this very year. Going to baseball terms, say someone, who had always been a great HR hitter, broke a record, but was caught with HGH earlier in the year. It's possible they could have done it without help, but because they did get caught cheating there's always a cloud of secrecy around it.

I would say there won't be an asterisk, and am not convinced there should be...but they did get caught cheating, so it wouldn't be ridiculous if they did get an asterisk.

I don't believe there should be an asterisk. Yes they cheated this season, but it didn't really have a major effect on the rest of that game even, much less the rest of the regular season (unless you count Belichick being a pissed off d-bag as having an effect on the season). The spygate scandal did not directly effect the results of the Patriots' season, as steroids would, and therefore, they should not be "punished" with an asterisk. But Belichick should've been suspended, especially since the NFL suspended Wade Wilson 4 games for taking a banned substance even though that action has no impact on the course of the game at all.

P-L
11-09-2007, 11:03 AM
I don't think there should be an asterisk. The tape was confiscated early in the 1st game before they got a chance to use it to their advantage. If you're going to compare it to steroids it's the equivalent of someone taking the syringe away from you before you stick it in your body. The Pats bought the steroids but didn't use them.

rchrd
11-09-2007, 11:04 AM
Nothing really to add personally but here's a little bit from Mike Carlson's nfluk.com column that possibly someone could inform me as to it's validity. Not the babble at the end of course...

Don Shula says that if the Pats were to go undefeated this year, there should be an asterisk next to the record because of the stiff penalties the NFL imposed on them for cheating. This caused me to look up the 1970 NFL Draft, where Miami had no first round pick, because they'd forfeited it, if I remember correctly, for 'tampering' with Shula while he was still coach of the Baltimore Colts. First stones, glass houses, pots and kettles, whatever.

Now don't get me wrong, I really like the ‘72 Dolphins, though I do think the champagne whenever the last unbeaten team loses is rather bad sportsmanship; records are made to be broken, after all. They had Howard Twilley, one of my all-time favorite receivers, and Doug Swift, who played against me for Amherst, had been cut by the Montreal Alouettes, and started at outside linebacker. They were a fine football team, with easy-to-admire players like Larry Csonka, Paul Warfield, Nick Buoniconti, Jake Scott, Earl Morrall, and Larry Little. It cheapens them to 'go after' the Pats, for whatever reason.

Especially, if, like Shula, you're doing infomercials. I wrote a couple of weeks ago about watching in my Atlanta hotel room at a jet-lagged 4 ayem Joe T Heismann selling arch supports. A short while later, Coach Shula came up, selling a diet plan where you order all your meals and they get delivered pre-cooked to your house, ready for the microwave. Great if you like eating airline food all year round! What made this more bizarre was when I went to lunch with an old friend who lives in Atlanta, and he showed up having lost about 60 pounds, which he attributed to...Coach Shula's sale pitch! He told me it taught him 'portion control', and if lunch at Manuel's Tavern (highly recommended if you visit Bubbaopolis) is any indication it worked. For him. He didn't even give in to a Leinenkugel Dark, one of America's best beers. Aaaah.

JJJ888
11-09-2007, 11:05 AM
I don't think there should be an asterisk. The tape was confiscated early in the 1st game before they got a chance to use it to their advantage. If you're going to compare it to steroids it's the equivalent of someone taking the syringe away from you before you stick it in your body. The Pats bought the steroids but didn't use them.

In truth, if there's an asterisk anywhere, it should be on seasons past, unfortunately, we don't have evidence that the Patriots used the system before now (although there clearly are rumors).

JK17
11-09-2007, 11:06 AM
I don't believe there should be an asterisk. Yes they cheated this season, but it didn't really have a major effect on the rest of that game even, much less the rest of the regular season (unless you count Belichick being a pissed off d-bag as having an effect on the season). The spygate scandal did not directly effect the results of the Patriots' season, as steroids would, and therefore, they should not be "punished" with an asterisk. But Belichick should've been suspended, especially since the NFL suspended Wade Wilson 4 games for taking a banned substance even though that action has no impact on the course of the game at all.

I don't think there should be an asterisk either, but I disagree with the bolded. In my opinion, the spygate scandal is like steroids for coaching. It's giving them an extra edge that other teams didn't have. Just because it did not help that game doesn't matter, it would have helped them this season. If a player got caught using steroids after the first game, and it was his first time doing it, it might not necesarily effect him for the rest of the year, but his year would still be tainted. I feel like its the same thing for this, just in coaching terms.

Still though, I don't really think there should be an asterisk, although whether there is or not, the debate over whether there should have been will probably serve as enough of an asterisk that some shadow will be cast on it.

JK17
11-09-2007, 11:08 AM
I don't think there should be an asterisk. The tape was confiscated early in the 1st game before they got a chance to use it to their advantage. If you're going to compare it to steroids it's the equivalent of someone taking the syringe away from you before you stick it in your body. The Pats bought the steroids but didn't use them.

Hmm...in fairness, after thinking of it that way, it does lessen the steroid analogy...although I don't know, if a player broke a record while in possession of steroids the suspicion would still be there on his season. Still, since its not exactly the same thing, it is a different scenario.

That's probably a much fairer way of looking at things.

Don Vito
11-09-2007, 12:48 PM
If there is going to be an asterik it should be on last season's record or whatever seasons before that. Why would there be an asterik on this seasons record if the tapes were used in the past?

JF4
11-09-2007, 12:56 PM
I don't think there should be an asteriks because:

I doubt that the Patriots were the first and only team doing this.

They got caught in what, the 3rd game? That means they manage to play all the rest of the games without it and they still seem to be just as good of a team.

niel89
11-09-2007, 06:22 PM
I honesty hope they lose a game so this is a non issue.

Really though I dont want there to be a * but I think there should be. They got caught cheating so there you go.

Sniper
11-09-2007, 06:25 PM
I honesty hope the lose a game so this is a non issue.

Really though I dont want there to be a * but I think there should be. They got caught cheating so there you go.

But that cheating wouldn't apply to the perfect season, save maybe a win over a garbage Jets team. How, exactly, would an asterisk work where if they go 16-0 they would have done it clean?

I find it humorous that a coach who was hired via cheating is saying this stuff

niel89
11-09-2007, 06:39 PM
that jets game is part of the season.

Sniper
11-09-2007, 06:42 PM
that jets game is part of the season.

Yes, because they would have struggled oh so mightily in beating the mighty Jets.The Pats 2nd string could beat the Jets by two touchdowns

niel89
11-09-2007, 06:48 PM
Yes, because they would have struggled oh so mightily in beating the mighty Jets.The Pats 2nd string could beat the Jets by two touchdowns

I agree that they would have beaten the jets anyways. However that doesnt change the fact that the did cheat.