Top Ten Sports Moments of 2000 – 2009

193311 Responseshttp://www.deepintosports.com/2009/12/29/top-ten-sports-moments-2000-2009/Top+Ten+Sports+Moments+of+2000+-+20092009-12-29+15%3A37%3A39Nate+Barlow to “Top Ten Sports Moments of 2000 – 2009”

1. Gairzo says:

   December 30th, 2009 at 2:19 am

   Agree with most of them–really impressed with your detailed memory.

   Have to argue with a couple that in my mind don't surpass Tiger holding all four major titles or even Lance Armstrong's Tour record.

   My notes…

   I can't believe Boston pulled that off and it was five years ago. To break a century long curse in that way was unforgettable. I remember vividly a friend of mine from NE had me over for dinner. She cooked seafood pasta in cream sauce, we drank Sam Adams and I can still see the utter look of shock on the Yank's face.

   But….You bring up the Patriots in this decade and I'm, gonna remind you they are documented cheaters who knew the plays much of their top tier opponents' play calls. They kept teams that played the game fair from glory–I'll never respect the Pasties as a great team. Never.

   Thing is, they didn't have to cheat. They could've won on their own, but they chose not to.

   You bring 'em up, I'll bring 'em right back down.

   Finally, I'll follow this up with a "Bottom Ten Column"

   Great stuff, dude…

2. Nate Barlow says:

   December 30th, 2009 at 2:36 am

   I didn't think about Armstrong until after I wrote the article, but that was part of the point for me… these were the greatest moments to me as I experienced them. Tiger's titles by nature were too spread out in time to have that immediate impact. And I didn't really watch the Tour de France… not really the most TV friendly of sports, especially half the world away.

   Which is also why the Patriots do belong there. I didn't pick the three titles, I picked specifically winning that first one. In that moment, it was incredible. On top of which, we don't know if they cheated that season, and even if they did, who knew what. It's wrong to blame the players for what the coaches did unless we explicitly know their complicity (did we fault Enron employees for what their execs did?) And as you pointed out when I have proclaimed that I suspect almost every coach in the NFL of such shenanigans, they are innocent until proven guilty–you can't make everyone guilty by association for what Belichick did until we know their specific knowledge.

   And even if the Brady knew everything marching down the field, one thing is indisputable–Vinatieri's clutch kicking. Whatever knowledge may or may not have been there to get him there, no amount of knowledge can help him kick. Remember what he did in the blizzard against Oakland that year? That is clutch.

3. Gairzo says:

   December 30th, 2009 at 4:46 am

   We disagree. The players by the very nature of the game, had to know what was going on. When you defense plays exactly right 2-3 times a half, that might fall into the realm of preparation or luck. When you do it 13-14 times per half, any football player worth his mouthpiece knows he has the benefit of inside info.

   Bud Fox knew what Gordon Gekko was doing. They may've never discussed it, but Bud knew something was up.

   You keep trying to separate the players from the coach. I'm not sure that's possible. It wasn't coaches barking out play calls of the Eagles and Lions. It wasn't coaches calling coverages against the Steelers in two championship games

   Of course, you're right–on one level–when the Patriots needed a play they executed it as did Vinitieri his kick. But can you separate that from what got them into position to do so?

4. Nate Barlow says:

   December 30th, 2009 at 7:02 am

   So it's okay for you to assume that the players were in the know–without proof–but not for me to assume that other egomaniacal coaches have cheated and/or continue to do so? You can't have it both ways.

   You're the one that made the point previously that we can't accuse without the evidence. We're free to suspect, of course, but we can't pass such judgment. Just because your suspicion fits a certain logic, however, does not make it the case. Innocent until proven guilty.

   Or is that only the case when it's anyone outside of the New England organization? Missed that memo.

   If not, I guess that means every mid-level manager for a failed bank had to know what was happening.

   Heck, there's not even any evidence it happened in the game we're discussing.

5. Gairzo says:

   December 30th, 2009 at 9:19 pm

   Nate, we can deduce what is highly probable from a set of facts:

   FACT: the Patriots were known/suspected of "pushing the envelope" when it came to videotaping since 2000.

   FACT: Belichick was known to have pushed rules to the max while coaching at Cleveland.

   FACT: Based on what I've read from numerous sources, the league and the media had obvious vested interests in letting the story fizzle away. Nobody wanted to mess with the popularity or revenue-generating behemoth that is the NFL. I state this as a fact based on Matt Walsh never having been interviewed in depth by the media. And, ain't it funny…no book….You gotta believe he would write a best seller. (Hell, I'd buy it just to torture you more:)

   The point is, it is a fact, both the media and the NFL had a genuine, understandable interest in smothering the fire generated by NE's chicanery.

   FACT: There is no evidence anywhere to even suggest any other coach illegally videotaped any team's signals the way Belichick did. Cite me one and I'll gladly check it out.

   My deducing that players of a coaching staff known to have cheated, are aware of what's going on is significantly more logical than you assuming other coaches have cheated without a shred of anecdotal, circumstantial, or hard evidence.

   Much of the facts cited above can be found in articles here:

   http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=30173...

   To be fair, there are some media sources that didn't think what NE did was a big deal.

   FACT: Many players and coaches did think it was a big deal and wanted the league to levy heavier fines.

   FACT: Belichick and NE were fined more than any NFL coach or organization in the 85 year history of the league.

   FACT: There are players from at least five different teams that have been quoted as saying stuff like "They (NE) knew what we were doing." or "…were one step ahead of us…" or similar quotes.

   None of the above is speculative and can be found on various web sites or media sources.

   Is it so unreasonable to deduce from that set of facts that players know what's going on during a game?

   If Teddy Bruschi tells Rodney Harrison "If you see Arians throw up 3 fingers and scratch his ass, Ben's primary is Miller over the middle." And then Harrison picks Ben off on that exact play and or defenses that pattern all day; does Harrison really believe that Bruschi just pulled that info out of his ass?

   Sure, maybe in the film room coaches might spot a player's tendency to telegraph a certain play, but that a different animal than knowing the play your opponent will run off a signal you illegally video taped and keep on file.

   Which, of course begs the question: "If it's no big deal and not a huge advantage gained by cheating, why keep the tapes on file?"

   There is such a thing as objective reality. There is substantial anecdotal and circumstantial evidence–as well as common human sense–that convincingly indicts Belichick, his staff for gaining an unfair, distinct, and inarguable competitive advantage, and his players for implementing a strategy based on that ill-gotten info.

   Hell, maybe you're right and the players were convinced they had teams' numbers because their coaches were geniuses. I believe, deep down they knew, because they know the game too well.

   Just like a mid-level banker secretly wondered if the couple taking home 60,000 a year would be able to afford their mortgage in five years, every position coach–and by extension, player–knew the NE's inside info came from tapes because the information is too accurate—but, "hey, it ain't my job to question coach."

   Let's say Steven Speilberg called you tomorrow and wanted you to write a script from one of his ideas. Let's say while in the meeting to discuss your two million dollar salary, you notice an Oscar worthy novel you once read on his desk. In fact, it becomes clear Steverino's idea is taken from the plot of that novel. He never brings it up. neither do you. But, you know our industry; you know what's up.

   Do you cash that check?

   –And, before you accuse me of hypocrisy, imagine me in a sleek red dress, with heels and stockings–geez, talk about disturbing–I'm a man-whore. I finish that script a week before deadline figuring one of the industry's greats knows what he's doing.

   My suspicion doesn't "fit a certain logic"; it is logical–period.

6. Nate Barlow says:

   December 30th, 2009 at 11:21 pm

   It doesn't matter how logical your deduction is, it is still a DEDUCTION.

   So I still ask, it's okay for you to deduce and pass judgement–without evidence–but not others?

   No matter how logical the argument, the basis of our society is you need the evidence. You can suspect all you want, but without evidence of an individual's complicity, you can't punish that person.

   Considering how ticked off Richard Seymour was about being traded, I'm surprised we haven't heard a news report calling out Belichick any more? Would be the perfect revenge, would it not? That's what I would do. Wonder why none of the ex-Patriots (who are ex- not of their own accords) haven't done so?

   Your bias is so extreme you haven't even acknowledged that Vinatieri is one of the greatest clutch kickers of all time. If there's any play in the game where foreknowledge is meaningless it would be on a field goal attempt. "Hey, everybody, they are going to try to block! Jumping up and sending guys around the end." Really? I never would have guessed. And even if that knowledge did mean something, it doesn't affect how the kicker executes, just his blockers.

   I don't cash that check.

7. Gairzo says:

   December 31st, 2009 at 1:17 am

   What proof do you want? Patriot players,…players….have, for years, been known to call out other teams signals.

   Specifically, other NFL players are quoted as saying their teams plays were being recognized and called on the field by Patriot players.

   Specifically, NFL players are quoted as saying the Patriots acted like they knew what the other team was doing. The quotes are all over the net.

   I grant you, it might not amount to rock solid, hang-'em-in-the-public-square evidence, but it is compelling nonetheless.

   Your point about Seymour and ex-players is not as strong as it seems at first glance. If one did rat out his team and said BB had a lot more extensive info on other teams, the first question out of some reporter's mouth would be…"So the players knew what was going on?" or "When did you realize your knowledge of other teams exceeded preparation or luck?"

   Seymour's and other player's silence might be more out of self-preservation than loyalty.

   I don't have a dog in this fight and I am not biased. Our readers know where my loyalties lie and I don't apologize.. On this site I have given the Patriots their due when it comes to the draft and how well they know what type of player they're looking for. Few teams do it better. Any bias I have, I admit to up front.

   You're the one who put the Strawberry Fields glasses on when it came to NE's defeat of St. Louis and said "a dynasty was born" without acknowledging that so called dynasty was achieved, in part by the organization disrespecting the game by cheating.

   Yes, Vinitieri made that clutch kick and many more. I acknowledge his excellence and clearly say the Pats still made the plays/kicks when they needed them. You're the one who won't acknowledge whatever success the Pats have had is tainted by documented cheating for which they received unprecedented punishment.

   I just can't conveniently separate what the organization did to get to that position for a single kick.

   You might not cash that check–the Patriot players sure as hell did.

8. Nate Barlow says:

   December 31st, 2009 at 4:54 am

   Maybe you should reread my post before putting words in my mouth, again. I said nothing about dynasty, specifically for that reason. I did point out the legendary status of Brady and Vinatieri. They are great players, and that drive defined them.

   And I have on many previous occasions, stated that Belichick's cheating does sadly taint the championships, regardless of whether anything went on during those games are not. It's disappointing as a fan, but true, and also complete bull to claim that I deny that. Please quote me correctly.

   Does what Belichick did taint Brady and Vinatieri's status? Maybe their legend, but not the fact that they are great players. More so Tom than Adam, because kickers are such a unique position who operate almost in a vacuum compared to other players. To hit two field goals in the snow against Oakland and then that kick in the Super Bowl is absolutely clutch by any definition.

   Really, all the players that the Patriots let go over the years are keeping quiet for self-preservation? I can buy that for some, to be sure, even most, but all, considering we're talking the better part of the decade. That defies the odds to me. If it had been only a couple years, yes, but there are only a couple players left from that first Super Bowl team, let alone any others who have come and went. We're talking a significant number to keep quiet. Sounds like conspiracy theory.

   It wouldn't matter to me if it were another team and not the Patriots. Would I suspect the players? Absolutely. Do I think it's possible that the Patriot players knew? Absolutely. But can we act like they did? Not without the evidence and I would say the same for other teams. And you know that I suspect that such cheating is far more common across the NFL, that I honestly believe the only difference between Belichick and other coaches is that he got caught. But can I treat other coaches in that manner? Not until the evidence shows it.

   I ask you: would you rip the Steelers players if it had been Cowher or Tomlin?

9. Gairzo says:

   December 31st, 2009 at 7:27 am

   I stand corrected, you did not say dynasty…and you may have stated that the championships were tainted–but not in that post.

   Our issue is my inability to separate "What Belichick did" from "Brady and Vinitieri's" status. NE's players cannot be absolved. From a strategic and tactical perspective, they had to know what was going on.

   Numerous NFL players say, on the field, Patriot players were yelling opponent's play calls pre-snap. That's a fact.

   How can that not reasonably be considered evidence?

   Several NFL and media people say Belichick was known to push the envelope from his days as Cleveland's HC.

   That's evidence.

   Belichick and the Patriots were fined more than any NFL personnel, ever.

   That's evidence.

   Logic, circumstances, anecdotal "testimony" and common human sense give us more than enough evidence to prove the players' complicity in the Patsies' cheating.

   You can provide no such evidence to even begin to indict any other coach.

   I'm still waiting for one source accusing any other NFL head coach of videotaping an opponents' signals like Belichick admitted to doing…

   Still waiting….

   I agree with you; Belichick may be the only one stupid and arrogant enough to have gotten caught. If Cowher or Tomlin got busted they would be immediately fired and I would never cite championships they've won as one of my 10 great moments of the decade.

   I would in fact, go to great lengths not to mention their championships won by cheating, no matter how clutch some of their players might be.

10. Nate Barlow says:

    December 31st, 2009 at 4:45 pm

    Yes, it was in previous posts that the tainted comment came up.

    Part of my picking, as I said in my first comment, was that these great moments were how I experienced them at that time. So what happened afterwards was not one of my considerations.

    It's why I did not pick the Patriots going 16-0, because that was the year they were caught. The irony is, after that first game (whose tapes were never used), Belichick most likely did not dare anything.

    I enjoyed Big Mac and Sammy's home run chase in '98. It was a great moment at that time. Too bad that we had to find out what they did afterwards.

    Tiger four championships were great. Now we know he's a douchebag. Didn't affect how he won them like the video and the steroids, to be sure, but a lot of people think less of him now because of the person he is than before and thus the memory of his accomplishments is sullied even though they aren't connected. But at the moment, they loved every second.

    One last piece of food for thought, as I am wearying of this argument (we will never convince the other): If I were Belichick, I would keep as few people in the know as possible. Less likely for leaks and being caught. Just like a general in the military–protect the intel sources from discovery and let the troops know the battle plan but not how you got there. I fully acknowledge that, as you say, the players may, perhaps even should, suspect, but it would best from Belichick's perspective to keep them from direct knowledge.

11. Gairzo says:

    December 31st, 2009 at 7:04 pm

    Good analogy with the military. I've been in that culture, though; enlisted personenel always know what's up–if only to cover their asses.

    I'm with you on Woods, too. Damn…I keep reading how he was advised to marry to create a more marketable "image." And, I guess it paid off. But, what's wrong with the hot young, rich guy getting in touch with his inner man-slut and enjoying the perks he's earned? I mean couldn't he endorse Trojans or Rockstar.. He could have found any number of beautiful famous women to agree to have his kidsget a "divorce" remain friends and have everything he wants. Now, he's just a tabloid douchebag.

    I should save that for the New Years' Resolutioncolumn I'm about to post:)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.