Falcons Fan MVP

Is there any game besides SB 51 that you can think of that looked rigged or scripted?

320 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Sean payton was suspended for a year because he had general knowledge that they were paying players to injury other players. Cause he had general knowledge that they were paying players to injury other players...(said it twice)

Nothing the Patriots did or was caught doing is more egregious than trying to injury another player. And paying them for it.

 

 

Edited by Ghost_02
JeffAtl and ATLSlobberKnockers like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ghost_02 said:

Sean payton was suspended for a year because he had general knowledge that they were paying players to injury other players. Cause he had general knowledge that they were paying players to injury other players...(said it twice)

Nothing the Patriots did or was caught doing is more egregious than trying to injury another player. And paying them for it.

 

 

Hello check just uses his mind as a weapon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ATLSlobberKnockers said:

I mean closer to the players plane. Its just difficult to determine from a single angle. One has to wonder why it's the only one shown.

Things that make you go hmmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ghost_02 said:

Sean payton was suspended for a year because he had general knowledge that they were paying players to injury other players. Cause he had general knowledge that they were paying players to injury other players...(said it twice)

Nothing the Patriots did or was caught doing is more egregious than trying to injury another player. And paying them for it.

 

 

Your auto correct changing injure to injury?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2019 at 0:56 PM, ATLSlobberKnockers said:

I would be suprised by that, but certainly not acting as if its ludicrous or impossible. People react angrily sometime s when tbeir beliefs are questioned. The laughing gets my goat though man. None of us have a clue about tye true nature of the world. Plenty of us have preconceived notions, education biasis, and apathetic attitudes  but none of us KNOW ****. People really show their intelligence during discussions like these.

You can believe the earth is flat if you want. But there is no evidence that the games are fixed, scripted, etc. Not believing in baseless conspiracy theories is certainly a sign of intelligence.

slider likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2019 at 4:36 PM, Yo_Lover said:

If you could drop that link in my inbox that'd be great.

 

figured out how to do it on this crappy kindle. Ill try to find tye one that talks about the specific code but these are a good start. Figured id leave tyem here so everyone could see. Lmk you got them

Iron Saint and Ovie_Lover like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

15 minutes ago, tactician said:

You can believe the earth is flat if you want. But there is no evidence that the games are fixed, scripted, etc. Not believing in baseless conspiracy theories is certainly a sign of intelligence.

You dont have to believe they are. If you 100% say its not possible that their is any corruption in the n.f.l., then you are either naive or a lazy thinker. Thats really the only certainty. 

Also I dont believe the earth is flat, but I listened to the "evidence" for it.

Edited by ATLSlobberKnockers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

35 minutes ago, ATLSlobberKnockers said:

You dont have to believe they are. If you 100% say its not possible that their is any corruption in the n.f.l., then you are either naive or a lazy thinker. Thats really the only certainty. 

Also I dont believe the earth is flat, but I listened to the "evidence" for it.

Yeah me a you think a lot alike my first dive into that line was "Big Food/Sugar" ever since I'm convinced there is more going on then meets the eye with a lot of things.

I'll never go all in to say games are rigged 100%, but I can say more like 50% 

Two biggest cases that many know in NBA are Mavs and Heat from 2006 then Kings and Lakers. Also can't forget the draft of 1985 Patrick Ewing and the envelope.

Edited by Zone#7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 6/19/2019 at 6:57 PM, Falcons Fan MVP said:

I'm surprised the referees didn't favor the Saints vs the Rams because a Brady vs Brees super bowl would have done the best ratings.

As far as super bowl blowouts is concerned we know most of America would enjoy seeing the Patriots get their @$$es handed to them for 60 minutes on the big stage.

Ugh...and as much as I hate to say it, we coulda been the team to do it. :argh:

Edited by Hard2BaBirdWachr
ATLSlobberKnockers likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hard2BaBirdWachr said:

Ugh...and as much as I hate to say it, we coulda been the team to do it. :argh:

The super bowl being in our home city was a curse. I thought we'd be the team to break the curse but oh well.

ATLSlobberKnockers likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Falcons Fan MVP said:

The super bowl being in our home city was a curse. I thought we'd be the team to break the curse but oh well.

True... One can only dream of a SB in their own city. I was referring to us mopping the floor with the Pats tho.

Falcons Fan MVP likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Zone#7 said:

Yeah me a you think a lot alike my first dive into that line was "Big Food/Sugar" ever since I'm convinced there is more going on then meets the eye with a lot of things.

I'll never go all in to say games are rigged 100%, but I can say more like 50% 

Two biggest cases that many know in NBA are Mavs and Heat from 2006 then Kings and Lakers. Also can't forget the draft of 1985 Patrick Ewing and the envelope.

explain how orlando got not only shaq but penny hardaway....

Cheap Talk likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 6/20/2019 at 1:51 AM, Falcons Fan MVP said:

Maybe since we got a new stadium we will be the golden goose soon. :)

Ehh maybe, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. In addition to y'all, the Cowboys, 49ers, Jets, and Vikings have all opened new stadiums in the last 10 years and they're all still waiting. The Giants ended up hitting one but other than that, the Vikings and Jets are the only teams to make it to a Conference Championship game since opening a new stadium. The Cowboys made it to the Divisional round but were bounced out each time.

On 6/22/2019 at 7:14 PM, Falconsin2012 said:

Mob mentality is terrifying.  Normal people turn into criminals.

And why is a ref carrying a knife during a match?

In his defense, it is Brazil. :lol:

Not sure of the laws there, but I'd probably have a pistol on me if I could.

On 6/24/2019 at 6:16 PM, VTCrunkler said:

JUST a hypothetical.  would the ratings of Saints v Patriots be lower than Rams v Patriots?  or about the same?

I think the League thought the ratings for a Rams-Patriots Super Bowl would be much higher than a potential Saints-Patriots game (or Saints-Chiefs game for that matter) due to the relative market sizes of the teams. Based on the media markets from the 2018-19 Nielsen ratings, Los Angeles is #2, Boston is #9, Kansas City is #32, and New Orleans is #50. Below are what I think the League was thinking the ratings would turn in for each potential match-up...

1.) #2 (Los Angeles) vs. #9 (Boston) - obviously the two biggest markets should draw the highest ratings

2.) #50 (New Orleans) vs. # 9 (Boston) - the Brees-Brady angle pumps this match-up drastically more than if it was based solely on market size due to the likelihood of nearly every market receiving high ratings to see that match-up

3.) #50 (New Orleans) vs. #32 (Kansas City) - the two MVP candidates meeting with a championship on the line, although the two smallest markets, this would draw in a lot of interest from other markets as well, however not to the magnitude of a Brees-Brady meeting

4.) #2 (Los Angeles vs. #32 (Kansas City) - a possibly interesting Super Bowl due to the high scoring potential of both offenses, but much less appealing due to their first match-up earlier in the year which was an absolute **** show due because both garbage defenses give up 50 points each; had they not played in the regular season to such a sloppy game, this possibly could've been #3 and NO-KC would be 4th

I believe us and the Patriots would've drawn far higher ratings than the Rams-Patriots did because frankly, besides a small sector of Los Angeles, no one gives a **** about the Rams. Los Angeles is and has always been a baseball town and college football town. However, had the Rams won the NFC Championship without any controversy, the Super Bowl likely wouldn't have tanked as bad as it did.

On 6/25/2019 at 3:36 PM, ATLSlobberKnockers said:

I would have liked to have seen a different angle. I think the ball was closer than that angle made it appear.

If anything I think that angle makes it look closer than it was where the NFL can continue using their stance of "it was a bang-bang play" instead of using other angles that show it was instead a "bang... .... ...bang play".

This is a still from the Coaches Film which comes with GamePass. Although it's from higher up, you can see the ball isn't even close yet.

E24BB2C6-04F5-4B2A-A522-057DFD8C4B00.jpeg.f2bf40ae5eff5ebff2bd7057fc4d9c37.jpeg

On 6/26/2019 at 7:31 AM, Ghost_02 said:

Sean payton was suspended for a year because he had general knowledge that they were paying players to injury other players. Cause he had general knowledge that they were paying players to injury other players...(said it twice)

Nothing the Patriots did or was caught doing is more egregious than trying to injury another player. And paying them for it.

Sean Payton was suspended for a year because the League needed to show they had a hard-lined stance in regards to player safety with the impending billion dollar concussion lawsuits (that was still behind the curtain to the general public at the time) and they knew they were about to get their collectives pants sued off their ***es. And you can repeat it all you want, it still wasn't a pay-to-injure pool, it was a pay-for-performance pool.

Edited by Iron Saint
Cheap Talk likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Iron Saint said:

Ehh maybe, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. In addition to y'all, the Cowboys, 49ers, Jets, and Vikings have all opened new stadiums in the last 10 years and they're all still waiting. The Giants ended up hitting one but other than that, the Vikings and Jets are the only teams to make it to a Conference Championship game since opening a new stadium. The Cowboys made it to the Divisional round but were bounced out each time.

In his defense, it is Brazil. :lol:

Not sure of the laws there, but I'd probably have a pistol on me if I could.

I think the League thought the ratings for a Rams-Patriots Super Bowl would be much higher than a potential Saints-Patriots game (or Saints-Chiefs game for that matter) due to the relative market sizes of the teams. Based on the media markets from the 2018-19 Nielsen ratings, Los Angeles is #2, Boston is #9, Kansas City is #32, and New Orleans is #50. Below are what I think the League was thinking the ratings would turn in for each potential match-up...

1.) #2 (Los Angeles) vs. #9 (Boston) - obviously the two biggest markets should draw the highest ratings

2.) #50 (New Orleans) vs. # 9 (Boston) - the Brees-Brady angle pumps this match-up drastically more than if it was based solely on market size due to the likelihood of nearly every market receiving high ratings to see that match-up

3.) #50 (New Orleans) vs. #32 (Kansas City) - the two MVP candidates meeting with a championship on the line, although the two smallest markets, this would draw in a lot of interest from other markets as well, however not to the magnitude of a Brees-Brady meeting

4.) #2 (Los Angeles vs. #32 (Kansas City) - a possibly interesting Super Bowl due to the high scoring potential of both offenses, but much less appealing due to their first match-up earlier in the year which was an absolute **** show due because both garbage defenses give up 50 points each; had they not played in the regular season to such a sloppy game, this possibly could've been #3 and NO-KC would be 4th

I believe us and the Patriots would've drawn far higher ratings than the Rams-Patriots did because frankly, besides a small sector of Los Angeles, no one gives a **** about the Rams. Los Angeles is and has always been a baseball town and college football town. However, had the Rams won the NFC Championship without any controversy, the Super Bowl likely wouldn't have tanked as bad as it did.

If anything I think that angle makes it look closer than it was where the NFL can continue using their stance of "it was a bang-bang play" instead of using other angles that show it was instead a "bang... .... ...bang play".

This is a still from the Coaches Film which comes with GamePass. Althought it's from higher up, you can see the ball isn't even close yet.

E24BB2C6-04F5-4B2A-A522-057DFD8C4B00.jpeg.f2bf40ae5eff5ebff2bd7057fc4d9c37.jpeg

Sean Payton was suspended for a year because the League needed to show they had a hard-lined stance in regards player safety with the impending billion dollar concussion lawsuits (that was still behind the curtain to the general public at the time) and they knew they were about to get their collectives pants sued off their ***es. And you can repeat it all you want, it still wasn't a pay-to-injure pool, it was a pay-for-performance pool.

Thanks for that. I've been wanting to see a different angle. It actually looks worse from that view

Iron Saint likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ATLSlobberKnockers said:

Thanks for that. I've been wanting to see a different angle. It actually looks worse from that view

All good, dude. Sucks major *** but it happened. There was another video I had saved on Facebook from the lower level behind that endzone (maybe slightly further to the left of this view) but it's rather grainy and the clip is like 5 seconds so it's harder to pause it directly on the point where they lock up to see the ball because the play button is in the way. :lol:.

ATLSlobberKnockers likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I thought Sean would’ve learned from Super Bowl 51.  Why pass when you can run the ball to secure a championship? 

 I guess all year of trolling 28-3 fried his brains too.

tenor.gif?itemid=10814022

:tiphat: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2019 at 6:38 PM, Falcons Fan MVP said:

What NFL games have you seen over the years that you think looked rigged or scripted besides Super bowl 51 (which is being discussed on the "do the Patriots get special treatment from the referees" thread)? It can be a Falcons game or any other game anytime in NFL history. Even if you don't think there is any games that are scripted, rigged or  bias officiating maybe you saw a game that sure looked that way. For me one game I thought looked very suspicious was the 2012 divisional round playoff game between the Broncos and Ravens. The "wide open" touchdown to tie. The bone headed interception by Peyton Manning with just under a minute in overtime looked suspicious to me. The Oilers vs Bills 35-3 let down wild card game was suspicious to me also. The Seahawks vs Steelers super bowl is definitely looked at as a game the refs were biased against the Seahawks.

Julian Edelman got that catch right in one take, Jack Nicholson's got nothing on him!

Falcons In 2012 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, slider said:

Julian Edelman got that catch right in one take, Jack Nicholson's got nothing on him!

These plays fly in the face of conspiracy theory: Edelman catch, Julio catch, Butler INT, Kearse catch, Tyree Helmet catch & the Giants sideline catch to beat the Patriots a second time

slider likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, slider said:

Julian Edelman got that catch right in one take, Jack Nicholson's got nothing on him!

I truly believe Edelman was not compromised, in the this sham of a football game. They do not approach everyone.

Edlemen was caught on tape asking Belichick immediately after the last play of SB 51, why are they dropping the confetti, the touchdown has to be reviewed (which was anything but a sure thing). Belichick then replied that the touchdown had already been reviewed. Edlemen then said "oh". 

Edlemen was right, of course they had to review the play. Belichick obviously knew they had not reviewed the play in .0009 seconds between the touchdown and the confetti dropping!

You are hanging your hat on some slim pickings. This baby was a sham from kickoff to the confetti.  

There were definitely plays that cost time and had to be made-up. Again, that is where the QBs come in to play. The 'Directors' of this 'Play'. Ryan had to give the Patriots over 2-minutes back by snapping the ball earlier and earlier when the game clock was ticking. 

Edited by Cheap Talk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 hours ago, Iron Saint said:

Sean Payton was suspended for a year because the League needed to show they had a hard-lined stance in regards to player safety with the impending billion dollar concussion lawsuits (that was still behind the curtain to the general public at the time) and they knew they were about to get their collectives pants sued off their ***es. And you can repeat it all you want, it still wasn't a pay-to-injure pool, it was a pay-for-performance pool.

The first part of your paragraph is all assumption and speculation not facts. If its facts please show me proof.

I repeated the sentence twice to hit on the fact that there are teams/ franchises whom have done worse than the Pats

And the saints got in trouble for trying to pay players to injure other players, they did an investigation showed video clips and came to that conclusion that is what they were doing. It's generally known as that

 

You and the Saint can claim they were actually paying players to perform..which is b.s. because that is what bonuses and contractual incentives are for.

 

Edited by Ghost_02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, Ghost_02 said:

The first part of your paragraph is all assumption and speculation not facts. If its facts please show me proof.

I repeated the sentence twice to hit on the fact that there are teams/ franchises whom have done worse than the Pats

And the saints got in trouble for trying to pay players to injure other players, they did an investigation showed video clips and came to that conclusion that is what they were doing. It's generally known as that

You and the Saint can claim they were actually paying players to perform..which is b.s. because that is what bonuses and contractual incentives are for.

You trust the results of an investigation paid for by the same organization that not only denied for decades the correlation between brain trauma and CTE in former NFL players, but actively fought to suppress that information becoming public knowledge because it'd affect their bottom line? The NFL can perform an investigation of what color the sky is and conclude the sky is green and will lie to your face about it. Would you believe that too?

I know our teams are rivals "we hate y'all / y'all hate us" yadda yadda so you want to believe we're truly guilty of that insidious lie, but what evidence have you seen the League provide that proves a "pay-to-injure" scheme existed? Was it the dingy, tattered bar napkin with player names and dollar signs on it produced by disgruntled, low-level assistant that openly sought retribution against the team because he didn't get a "real" Super Bowl ring and after the confluence of events he described produced multiple inaccuracies, he later recanted his lies? Or was it the audio of "big bad coach says mean things"? I hope it's not the latter because if it is, I can tell you've never played football because I've heard high school coaches say far worse than what Williams said on that tape (and have read worse on this very forum about Brees and I'm sure you've read worse on Saints boards about Ryan). If there was truly a "pay-to-injure" scheme, Gregg Williams would've never been reinstated from his indefinite suspension and he for **** sure wouldn't be holding the same coaching position he had before. If they find out a teacher is a pedophile, the school districts don't welcome back that teacher to continue teaching after their prison sentence, they have to find another career without children (or in Williams' case, without football).

But let me ask you, if it was a pay-to-injure scheme like the League and everyone else that's toting their bucket are claiming, then why doesn't the injury data substantiate those claims?

A 3rd-party (two writers for the Los Angeles Times) unaffiliated with the Saints or NFL collected and analyzed the injury report data of all 32 teams between 2009 and 2011 (when the "pay-to-injure" scheme was allegedly occurring). These are the publicly available injury reports provided by every team, every week of the season as mandated by the League. I'll link that article for your reading pleasure...

AEI: The Saints ain't sinners

Now before we get to the results of that analysis, we can both agree that the injury report data that is provided by each team is concrete evidence that not only provides an accurate time-frame on when a player sustained an injury (if there was a "pay-to-injure" system in place then teams that just played the Saints should consistently have a disproportionate number of players on the injury report the following week as opposed to after playing other teams), but should be also be 100% accurate because any inaccuracies subject those teams to discipline by the League for lying on their injury report, correct?

So now the results, what did they find out from their analysis? They found in that 3-year time-frame (2009-2011), the Saints injured the 2nd fewest opponents per game (3.2 opponents injured/game) in the League. During that same 2009 and 2011 time-frame, the League average was any given team injuring an average of 3.8 opponents per game; in other words that is a statistically significant result which in an experiment would more than likely reject the null hypothesis (of there being a "pay-to-injure" scheme). The only team with a lower average being the Chargers at about 3.1 opponents injured/game. For example, your own Falcons injured on average about 3.7 opponents/game in that same 2009-2011 span which about falls in line with the 2009-2011 League average. Lets go year-by-year maybe?

  • 2009: Saints injured an average of 2.8 opposing players (League average was 3.8 players)
  • 2010: Saints injured an average of 3.5 opposing players (League average was 3.6 players)
  • 2011: Saints injured an average of 3.3 opposing players (League average was 3.8 players)

Oh that's true though, the "bounty" system was operated by only the defense! Fair enough, but oh wait, the Saints still were in the lower-fifth of the League regarding only injuries to opposing offensive players as well at 6th fewest opposing offensive player injuries/game (about 1.5 or 1.6 opposing offensive players/game) in the League with only the Chargers, Vikings, Ravens, Bills, and Dolphins injuring fewer opposing offensive players on average between 2009-2011. In 2009, the Saints injured on average 0.9 opposing offensive players vs. the League average was 1.9 offensive players injured. 2010 and 2011 were statistically both average with slightly more opposing offensive players vs. the average but as the writers of the article note, "but no more than chance might allow", i.e. an outlier.

There's also a graph in that article that plots every teams' average to look at if words aren't your thing, unfortunately it's not letting me attach it here due to the size. If it's been awhile since you read a graph, the further up the team helmet is on the Y-axis refers to more opposing players injured, and the further to the right of the X-axis refers to more injuries caused by defensive players only. If we were running a "pay-to-injure" scheme to the level that the League maintained, our helmet should be around where the Broncos helmet is, if not even further up and further to the right. The Broncos were who the League should've been looking into if they wanted an actual believable case against a team. Averaging 4.25 injured opponents/game and 2.3 injured offensive opponents/game? Eesh.

If data isn't your thing, which I can't blame you if it isn't, how about some direct quotes from the very players the "pay-to-injure" scheme alleged to have targeted?

CBS Sports: "Brett Favre calls Saints bounty charges 'just hearsay'"

Quote

"In all honesty, I’m pretty indifferent [about the supposed bounty]. But I'd have to say when they were allowed to play, I thought that was the right move because I don't see enough evidence. I don't think 'Some guy said that this went on' is enough evidence.

I don’t know Jonathan [Vilma] all that well. I think he’s a great player. Seems like a great leader. Seems like the guys who have played with him have a lot of respect for him and Scott Fujita. The other guys, I really don’t know. I felt like that’s the right thing to do. Otherwise, I think it’s just hearsay.

I'm not pissed [of the alleged $10,000 bounty]. It's football. I don't think anything less of those guys. I would have loved to play with Vilma. **** of a player. I've got a lot of respect for [former Saints defensive coordinator] Gregg Williams. He's a great coach. I'm not going to make a big deal about it. In all honesty, there's a bounty of some kind on you on every play."

Dan Patrick Show: "Kurt Warner didn’t think Saints were trying to take him out"

Quote

“I played in a lot of games where they were really trying to take me out. When I went back and looked at that game … I don’t ever remember thinking it was anything more than a tough playoff game. I don’t remember anything that was beyond the whistle. Even the big hit was legal.”

From another article by Mike Florio who, after a period of time, stopped carrying the NFL's bucket blindly and did his own research...

Quote

Though Warner said he had no knowledge of bounty systems during his career, he said “there’s no doubt” that players pay attention to the injury report, and that he believes players want to knock opponents out of games.  “I think that’s part of the game, and I think that’s part of the mindset,” Warner said.  “And I’m not going to tell you that I haven’t believed that there was probably defensive players that got together and said, ‘Hey, you know, a thousand bucks for the first guy to knock Kurt out of a football game.’  I’m sure that’s been a part of our league for a long time.”

So did the hit against the Saints end his career?  “No, absolutely not,” Warner said.  “It was a nice exclamation point on it.”

Warner also pointed out that the hit from Bobby McCray wasn’t dirty.  “It was a violent hit, no question,” Warner said.  “But I also believes it was a legal hit.”

60 Minutes: Packers' Aaron Rodgers says he's a target

Quote

"Every game I feel like they're trying to take me out. Now I don't know about money. I've never felt there's been money on my head," he tells Pelley. "The defense is trying to either knock you out of the game or knock you out of your rhythm.

Rodgers made that statement I bolded in November 2012, 8 months after "Bountygate" dominated storylines that he was one of the players targeted by the Saints alleged "pay-to-injure" system the year before during our 2011 Week 1 game.

So who do you believe more? The injury data and the words of the actual players the League itself alleged were targeted? Or the multi-billion dollar entity that has a thorough, well-documented history of a penchant for stretching, exasperating, and even distorting the truth in favor of pumping out sensationalized headlines and propaganda while simultaneously ousting any information that directly refutes the claims of The Shield, regardless of the credibility of the contrarian information or lack thereof regarding the League's claims?

Now I know you likely skipped most of, if not nearly everything of what I just typed, but I earnestly urge you and anyone else to read through that information with a fair and unbiased mind and picture your favorite team in that predicament and tell me how you think you'd feel.

Edited by Iron Saint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now