Patriots, Shula, Asterisk, Vrabel...

[soxfan17881]

Generally speaking, I'm not a huge Pats fan. I'm an Eagles fan, as hard as that usually is. I certainly enjoy watching the Pats this year. They are exciting and, most likely, historical in their 2007 domination. As such, my interest was peaked when I heard the talk on ESPN Radio about Don Shula's comments that, should the Pats go undefeated this year, the record should have an asterisk because of the "Spygate" sideline camera cheating infraction.

 

Don Shula said, referring to the fines and draft choice loss that the league imposed on the Pats:

"That tells you the seriousness or significance of what they found," Shula said, according to the Daily News. "I guess you got the same thing as putting an asterisk by Barry Bonds' home run record."

In response, Mike Vrabel, pats linebacker, had this to say:

"I think that we try to go out there and play hard every week. And I don't think that guys are going to draw on an old retired coach and old washed up players to pump us up. We play hard. We try to go out there and play hard. That's our job every week is to go out there and play hard. To play for our team, my teammates, my coaches, the respect factor, that's what I try to go out and play for, and I think everybody else on our team does the same thing."

First, to compare what the Pats did in one game (because that was all that was "proven"), something that may or may not have made a difference, to Barry Bonds' half-career of steroid laden home runs, where the juice definitely affected the outcome, is like comparing a Cub Scout slap fight to World War II. Not even close.

 

Second, the punishment, as such, was the fines to the coach and franchise and the pending draft choice losses. That is the punishment. Bonds has received no punishments as yet, but either way, I believe the Pats have paid the piper sufficiently.

 

As far as Shula is concerned, what else should we expect? That undefeated Dolphins team is the only thing that Shula is really remembered for, other than being the coach who was so wonderful he couldn't win a Super Bowl with one of the top QB's of all time at the helm. Whenever a team starts off undefeated and then loses, Shula and Csonka and whomever else is left get together for a little drinky to congratulate themselves for the 35th or so time. I'd have more respect for Shula if he just came out and said, "Screw these guys! I love that record and I want to keep it all for myself!"

 

Vrabel? Well said. He wasn't vulgar or rude. He was honest.

 

And here's the kicker... This quote from USA today:

"[shula] was still the coach of the Baltimore Colts at the end of the 1969 season, when then-Miami owner Joe Robbie approached him and signed Shula to a contract. The NFL charged the Dolphins with tampering and awarded their first-round pick to the Colts. Undaunted, Miami reached the Super Bowl in 1971, then rebounded from a loss to the Dallas Cowboys by winning the next two, including the perfect 17-0 campaign."

So, aside from being a bitter old fart, Shula is also a bit of a hypocrite.

[ORS]

I wouldn't call him a hypocrite. Tampering with people under contract is unethical, but it does not result in a competitive advantage on the field. Draft picks are now standard tax in dealing with a coach under contract (same level position - no penalty if it results in promotion).

 

One of the things I find funny is the fact that he wasn't that critical early in the season right when it happened. I can't remember the exact quote, but paraphrased he essentially said that was common practice. Now that some of his legacy is being threatened, he's singing a different tune. He's such a phony.

[soxfan17881]

I wouldn't call him a hypocrite.

 

Ok. Perhaps it's a little harsh. I did say "bit of a hypocrite", though. The point is, Shula is trying to do whatever he can (admittedly, there isn't much) to preserve that '72 season. And personally, I don't think that the camera on the sideline makes much difference. Maybe I don't understand it, but how is it different than a camera in the press box with a zoom? Or a guy with a notepad keeping track of the other teams signals?

[mtbykr]

I wouldn't call him a hypocrite. Tampering with people under contract is unethical, but it does not result in a competitive advantage on the field. Draft picks are now standard tax in dealing with a coach under contract (same level position - no penalty if it results in promotion).

 

One of the things I find funny is the fact that he wasn't that critical early in the season right when it happened. I can't remember the exact quote, but paraphrased he essentially said that was common practice. Now that some of his legacy is being threatened, he's singing a different tune. He's such a phony.

 

 

 

Exactly, he waited until the pats beat the colts and then come out with this.....he' s just afraid of not being able to drink with his buddies

[mtbykr]

Ok. Perhaps it's a little harsh. I did say "bit of a hypocrite"' date=' though. The point is, Shula is trying to do whatever he can (admittedly, there isn't much) to preserve that '72 season. And personally, I don't think that the camera on the sideline makes much difference. Maybe I don't understand it, but how is it different than a camera in the press box with a zoom? Or a guy with a notepad keeping track of the other teams signals?[/quote']

 

 

 

I don't want to bring back a 'spygate' thread; but what I find interesting is that Shula is using the ruling of the commish in his comments. If he kept reading the commish's ruling he would have read where the commish said that there was no competitive advantage that the pats gained as it was for future use. It was confiscated before halftime of the first game, and had no bearing on that game (and obviously none on any games since). He is obviously worried that the pats will go undefeated (which is a long way away) and this was just a preemptive strike at their legacy!

[bobby jr]

I don't want to bring back a 'spygate' thread; but what I find interesting is that Shula is using the ruling of the commish in his comments. If he kept reading the commish's ruling he would have read where the commish said that there was no competitive advantage that the pats gained as it was for future use. It was confiscated before halftime of the first game' date=' and had no bearing on that game (and obviously none on any games since). He is obviously worried that the pats will go undefeated (which is a long way away) and this was just a preemptive strike at their legacy![/quote']

 

You are correct. This is just "sour grapes in advance" by Don Shula.

 

The Pats gained no competitive advantage on the field for 2007. Shula left that part of the commissioner's statement out. Shula has an agenda, to disparage the Patriots in advance, in case they break his precious Dolphins record.

 

The 1972 Dolphins had one of the easiest schedules of all time. They played a patsy schedule and were even underdogs in the superbowl that season because everyone knew it.

 

I hope the Pats do go undefeated this year and wipe the Dolphins off the books. The Pats are a much greater team.

[bobby jr]

Shula left the Colts for the Dolphins in '70. The NFL discovered he had talks with the Dolphins while under contract with the Colts, and the Dolphins had to give up their first round draft pick to the Colts the next year.

 

Therefore Shula had a similar penalty for his actions as the Patriots penalty this year. And the 1972 Dolphins record is blemished because they cheated to get their coach if you look at it the way Shula is looking at the Pats 2007 record.

[rician blast]

From an MSNBC article on his original comments:

 

In an interview with The Associated Press, Shula laughed when asked if the Patriots deserve an asterisk if they finish 19-0.

 

“That’s not for me to say,” the Pro Football Hall of Fame coach said. “They were penalized, after the first game, wasn’t it? They had a No. 1 draft choice taken away, and (coach Bill) Belichick was fined, and the team was fined. ...

 

“Since then they’ve been playing within the rules, and their accomplishments should be recognized. But if there was something that happened to diminish what they’ve accomplished, then that has been noted.”

 

Shula coached the Miami Dolphins to a 17-0 record in 1972, still the NFL’s only perfect season. He caused a stir when he first made critical comments regarding the Patriots scandal to the New York Daily News on Monday.

 

“You would hate to have that attached to your accomplishments. They’ve got it,” Shula told the newspaper. “I guess you got the same thing as putting an asterisk by Barry Bonds’ home run record. I guess it will be noted that the Patriots were fined and a No. 1 draft choice was taken away during that year of accomplishment.”

 

Where does he say "yes it should be asterisked?"

He said he guesses it will be noted that they were fined and punished.

 

Talk about a total overreaction by Pats fans and players. Another media creation where the writers throw out the bait and players and fans bite.

 

I will say this...Shula should know better than to even afford anyone the opportunity to use his comemnts for such sensationalism, so f*** him anyway.

[See Red]

I'll say this...

 

Anybody who wants an asterisk by what Barry Bonds has accomplished and doesn't think the Patriots deserve an asterisk is a hypocrite -- especially since the Patroits have been caught cheating. Personally, I don't think either should get an asterisk... and I think people should stop talking about asterisking s***.

[Thumper]

I'll say this...

 

Anybody who wants an asterisk by what Barry Bonds has accomplished and doesn't think the Patriots deserve an asterisk is a hypocrite -- especially since the Patroits have been caught cheating. Personally, I don't think either should get an asterisk... and I think people should stop talking about asterisking s***.

 

Well if they cheated, they cheated. And if the Patriots did cheat, in which they did, then an asterisk should go into the books, regardless. I'm sure they aren't the only team to have done it, they just got caught and that's all it is.

[soxfan17881]

I'll say this...

 

Anybody who wants an asterisk by what Barry Bonds has accomplished and doesn't think the Patriots deserve an asterisk is a hypocrite -- especially since the Patroits have been caught cheating. Personally, I don't think either should get an asterisk... and I think people should stop talking about asterisking s***.

 

First, let's skip (just for the sake of argument) the idea that only common sense and logic prove the Bonds is a roid user and he has never been proven to have used (other than the whole skull expansion thing.) If we assume that he is guilty, again just for this discussion, you still believe there is no difference between taking steroids for the better part of a decade,) which would affect every game and produce a 70+ HR season and add up to the all time record for home runs) and the use of a camera for half of one game in one season? They're the same in your opinion?

 

If so, wouldn't we need to say then that all cheating is equal? There are no levels of culpability? Simply guilt or innocence? Doesn't that open us up to a lot of chaos?