Steelers claim WR/QB Devin Gardner

[Jobu]

Simple question...if Belicheck and Brady are so great, why do they need to cheat?

Because they can.

Because they need to.

Bing-fucking-o!

[COR-TEN]

Simple question...if Belicheck and Brady are so great, why do they need to cheat?

The same reason Billionaires cheat on their tax returns
The same reason that asshole with the big truck decided to take two parking spaces
The same reason your co-worker put their name on your work
The same reason the phenomenal athlete transferred high schools because of his "special educational needs"

There are a lot of people looking for any edge they can get. It's become so commonplace to push the boundaries of the rules that it's not even frowned upon any longer. In fact, this kind of type A get the most you can get attitude is the most heralded, american attitude you can have.

"if you ain't cheatin you ain't trying" should be the new american motto

Excellent post. Couldn't agree more.

[Legacy User]

there have been actual studies showing that "people of higher status are more prone to cheating" --
ie, people who you think don't need any more help, are MORE LIKELY to cheat --
That basically sums up Brady and the Pats

Here's a discussion of the study:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/27 ... d-20120228

The rich really are different from the rest of us, scientists have found — they are more apt to commit unethical acts because they are more motivated by greed.

People driving expensive cars were more likely than other motorists to cut off drivers and pedestrians at a four-way-stop intersection in the San Francisco Bay Area, UC Berkeley researchers observed. Those findings led to a series of experiments that revealed that people of higher socioeconomic status were also more likely to cheat to win a prize, take candy from children and say they would pocket extra change handed to them in error rather than give it back.

Because rich people have more financial resources, they're less dependent on social bonds for survival, the Berkeley researchers reported Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. As a result, their self-interest reigns and they have fewer qualms about breaking the rules.

"If you occupy a more insular world, you're less likely to be sensitive to the needs of others," said study lead author Paul Piff, who is studying for a doctorate in psychology.


But before those in the so-called 99% start feeling ethically superior, consider this: Piff and his colleagues also discovered that anyone's ethical standards could be prone to slip if they suddenly won the lottery and joined the top 1%.

"There is a strong notion that when people don't have much, they're really looking out for themselves and they might act unethically," said Scott Wiltermuth, who researches social status at USC's Marshall School of Business and wasn't involved in the study. "But actually, it's the upper-class people that are less likely to see that people around them need help — and therefore act unethically."

In earlier studies, Piff documented that wealthy people were less likely to act generously than relatively impoverished people. With this research, he hoped to find out whether wealthy people would also prioritize self-interest if it meant breaking the rules.

The driving experiments offered a way to test the hypothesis "naturalistically," he said. Trained observers hid near a downtown Berkeley intersection and noted the makes, model years and conditions of bypassing cars. Then they recorded whether drivers waited their turn.

It turned out that people behind the wheels of the priciest cars were four times as likely as drivers of the least expensive cars to enter the intersection when they didn't have the right of way. The discrepancy was even greater when it came to a pedestrian trying to exercise a right of way.

There is a significant correlation between the price of a car and the social class of its driver, Piff said. Still, how fancy a car looks isn't a perfect indicator of wealth.

So back in the laboratory, Piff and his colleagues conducted five more tests to measure unethical behavior — and to connect that behavior to underlying attitudes toward greed.

For instance, the team used a standard questionnaire to get college students to assess their own socioeconomic status and asked how likely subjects were to behave unethically in eight different scenarios.

In one of the quandaries, students were asked to imagine that they bought coffee and a muffin with a $10 bill but were handed change for a $20. Would they keep the money?

In another hypothetical scenario, students realized their professor made a mistake in grading an exam and gave them an A instead of the B they deserved. Would they ask for a grade change?


The patterns from the road held true in the lab — those most willing to engage in unethical behavior were the ones with the highest social status.

One possible explanation was that wealthy people are simply more willing to acknowledge their selfish side. But that wasn't the issue here. When test subjects of any status were asked to imagine themselves at a high social rank, they helped themselves to more candies from a jar they were told was meant for children in another lab.

Another experiment recruited people from Craigslist to play a "game of chance" that the researchers had rigged. People who reported higher social class were more likely to have favorable attitudes toward greed — and were more likely to cheat at the game.

"The patterns were just so consistent," Piff said. "It was very, very compelling."

Piff, who is writing a paper about attitudes toward the Occupy movement, said that his team had been accused of waging class warfare from time to time.

"Berkeley has a certain reputation, so yeah, we get that," he said.

But rather than vilify the wealthy, Piff said, he hopes his work leads to policies that help bridge the gap between the haves and have-nots.

Acts as simple as watching a movie about childhood poverty seem to encourage people of all classes to help others in need, he said.

[pickarooney]

Enough evidence is in to legitimately question their "greatness." Bill Cowher used to emphasize how fine the line is in the NFL between winning and losing. He was right. Belichik was just another struggling coach for quite some time. It doesn't take much to stack the deck, and now we know the Patriots have been cheating in multiple ways that consistently tip the scales in their favor. It's naive to think otherwise at this point. And yet even the most virulent Patriot haters are qualifying their criticisms with expressions like "I know he's an excellent coach, but . . .," "He's the best qb, but . . ." There shouldn't even be talk of an asterisk, as if the cheating is some minor addendum to the still legitimate greatness. The whole nature of the legacy should be redefined. They cheated their way into many superbowls (where cheating is harder to pull off and they become suddenly, strangely human) and BARELY won some of them. I always remember the voice of Jeff Fisher sternly refuting the idea that "everyone is doing it"--other coaches and players are in fact busting their butts, and often losing, within the rules. (Great post by Cor-ten BTW.)

[Legacy User]

I'm not so sure about that Jeemie. Despite the best efforts from ESPN, NFLN, and the likes, most knowledgable football fans, true football fans, know that those Lombardi's come with a huge asterisks attached to them. I think even Pats fans, deep down inside, know this to be true.
I spent the past weekend in Baltimore. The Ravens fans I was in contact with(and one Colts fan), even after finding out I was a Steelers fan, wanted to talk about nothing but the "Cheating Patriots", and the "lying fraud Brady". Steelers fans aren't the only ones enjoying this!

Agreed Jobus Rum

[steelmann58]

Washington reverted back to the IR reserved.

[Steelafan77]

Labriola suggests that this (Gardner) scenario is similar to Antwan Randle-El. One can only hope he's correct.

[Legacy User]

I'm not so sure about that Jeemie. Despite the best efforts from ESPN, NFLN, and the likes, most knowledgable football fans, true football fans, know that those Lombardi's come with a huge asterisks attached to them. I think even Pats fans, deep down inside, know this to be true.
I spent the past weekend in Baltimore. The Ravens fans I was in contact with(and one Colts fan), even after finding out I was a Steelers fan, wanted to talk about nothing but the "Cheating Patriots", and the "lying fraud Brady". Steelers fans aren't the only ones enjoying this!

Agreed Jobus Rum

This book tells it all and BB and Brady are an okay coach and QB who cheated to become 'great'. Read and learn

http://www.amazon.com/Spygate-Untold-St ... 0985467002

[zeke5123]

Simple question...if Belicheck and Brady are so great, why do they need to cheat?

Because they can.

Closet.

[bradshaw2ben]

Labriola suggests that this (Gardner) scenario is similar to Antwan Randle-El. One can only hope he's correct.

Murphy is closer to that scenario... I don't think Gardner is close to the player Randle-El was.

However, Indiana recruited the next Randle-El, he played like it as a starter, broke his leg, was great the next year but asked to split time with a player who didn't perform as well and, when they again didn't give him the starting QB job he thought he'd earned after the next spring, he transferred with two years of eligibility. He promptly led his new team to a 13-2 record, put up 3000+ passing yards and 1000+ rushing yards, with 30 TD passes and 11 rushing TDs and almost stole the National Championship game with a 58-yard TD run with 1:38 left in the game to take the lead against a team that had won 3 straight titles.

When THAT guy signs somewhere, we can talk about it being a Randle-El situation.

[Legacy User]

Labriola suggests that this (Gardner) scenario is similar to Antwan Randle-El. One can only hope he's correct.

Murphy is closer to that scenario... I don't think Gardner is close to the player Randle-El was.

However, Indiana recruited the next Randle-El, he played like it as a starter, broke his leg, was great the next year but asked to split time with a player who didn't perform as well and, when they again didn't give him the starting QB job he thought he'd earned after the next spring, he transferred with two years of eligibility. He promptly led his new team to a 13-2 record, put up 3000+ passing yards and 1000+ rushing yards, with 30 TD passes and 11 rushing TDs and almost stole the National Championship game with a 58-yard TD run with 1:38 left in the game to take the lead against a team that had won 3 straight titles.

When THAT guy signs somewhere, we can talk about it being a Randle-El situation.

He transferred to B2B Directional State, didn't he?

[bradshaw2ben]

Illinois Directional State (who went 5-6 the year before)

Tre Roberson

[jeemie]

Simple question...if Belicheck and Brady are so great, why do they need to cheat?

Because they can.

Closet.

I'm sorry I don't let hate cloud my judgement the way many people here do.

Forgot that it was necessary to check one's brain at the door to be considered a "true Steeler fan".

[DP39]

Because they can.


I'm sorry I don't let hate cloud my judgement the way many people here do.

Forgot that it was necessary to check one's brain at the door to be considered a "true Steeler fan".

Just as it's possible for one's hate to cloud their judgment, it's equally possible for one's love to cloud their judgment, if not more so.

Is it possible that your love for how great BB and Brady seem to you is clouding your judgment on how much they may have actually benefited by cheating for the last 10-15 years?

I say, just as likely, if not more so maybe.

[Legacy User]

Because they can.


I'm sorry I don't let hate cloud my judgement the way many people here do.

Forgot that it was necessary to check one's brain at the door to be considered a "true Steeler fan".

Just as it's possible for one's hate to cloud their judgment, it's equally possible for one's love to cloud their judgment, if not more so.

Is it possible that your love for how great BB and Brady seem to you is clouding your judgment on how much they may have actually benefited by cheating for the last 10-15 years?

I say, just as likely, if not more so maybe.

I was accused of being a closet Pats fan for suggesting that Brady is still one of the best QBs to play the game even if he cheated. Jim Kelly has said the same thing. I am not a Pats fan. Jeems has a point.

[DP39]

I was accused of being a closet Pats fan for suggesting that Brady is still one of the best QBs to play the game even if he cheated. Jim Kelly has said the same thing. I am not a Pats fan. Jeems has a point.

I think Jeems may be a big BB and Brady fan , not as much a Pats fan.

I consider myself someone that's capable of seeing the beauty or greatness in something without actually being a fan of said thing, but when that thing started out average at best and morphed into great all while being surrounded by a smell of cheating (not authentic), I question it. And sorry, but I ain't buying.

Smoke and fire.

Like I said before, I was a big Bill Cosby fan, but not so blinded by fandom as to not see the smoke that now surrounds him and understand the probability of hidden flames which accompany it.

[lifelongsteel]

This thread has taken a turn towards the absurd.

So the new thing here is apparently you can't respect the accomplishments of Brady and BB without being called a Pats fan?

What a load of shit. What is this? Middle School?

Grow the F up

[DP39]

This thread has taken a turn towards the absurd.

So the new thing here is apparently you can't respect the accomplishments of Brady and BB without being called a Pats fan?

What a load of shit. What is this? Middle School?

Grow the F up

That's the great thing about message boards (especially for some that have the time/desire to post a shit-ton), anyone can join the middle of an adult conversation without reading up on what's really being discussed throughout multiple treads and accuse some of acting like a middle-school-er.

Funny, I remember the obnoxious kids in middle school doing stuff like that....

[lifelongsteel]

This thread has taken a turn towards the absurd.

So the new thing here is apparently you can't respect the accomplishments of Brady and BB without being called a Pats fan?

What a load of shit. What is this? Middle School?

Grow the F up

That's the great thing about message boards (especially for some that have the time/desire to post a shit-ton), anyone can join the middle of an adult conversation without reading up on what's really being discussed throughout multiple treads and accuse some of acting like a middle-school-er.

Funny, I remember the obnoxious kids in middle school doing stuff like that....

You could be right. I haven't read every word of this thread. If I misunderstood then my bad and apologies all around.

As I read it your comments seem pretty clear.

[Legacy User]

I was accused of being a closet Pats fan for suggesting that Brady is still one of the best QBs to play the game even if he cheated. Jim Kelly has said the same thing. I am not a Pats fan. Jeems has a point.

I think Jeems may be a big BB and Brady fan , not as much a Pats fan.

I consider myself someone that's capable of seeing the beauty or greatness in something without actually being a fan of said thing, but when that thing started out average at best and morphed into great all while being surrounded by a smell of cheating (not authentic), I question it. And sorry, but I ain't buying.

Smoke and fire.

Like I said before, I was a big Bill Cosby fan, but not so blinded by fandom as to not see the smoke that now surrounds him and understand the probability of hidden flames which accompany it.

As do I. Well said DP. A lot of smoke and a lot fire. Don't be afraid to call a spade a spade. Notice there isn't usually hate for the old niners dynasty, or cowboys of the 90's. The Pats are a different story, complete stench, look and feel of cheating.

[Scunge]

While I would agree that Brady is among the best of his generation of QBs, I don't know if that is saying much. You look at the ordinary numbers he put up his first 5 years, and then look at the numbers he has put up in the last 10 years and they aren't close really. What changed? Well, he and Manning bitched about their WRs being mugged past the 5 yard cushion, then there were the rule changes about not hitting their precious receivers, about them not being hit, about being able to doctor, prepare their own balls, with Brady you had spy gate, now deflate gate, etc, ad nauseam.

You take Ben and he can play in any generation of football. I could say the same for Rodgers. Those that say Brady and/or Manning could do the same are delusional. Both of those QBs would be exposed if they had to play in the 70s or 80s. Brady and Manning are products of the system, the ultimate system QBs that need every bit of help that they can to win and be successful.

[Legacy User]

Jim friggin' Kelly thinks Brady is one of the best if not the best to ever play the game. I'd wager Kelly knows something about QB play and understands the rule changes. We have no idea how Brady or Manning would do. It's an untestable assumption. I would never trade Ben for Brady, but that's because I'm a homer and I love Ben's iron balls of steel play.

[DP39]

This thread has taken a turn towards the absurd.

So the new thing here is apparently you can't respect the accomplishments of Brady and BB without being called a Pats fan?

What a load of shit. What is this? Middle School?

Grow the F up

That's the great thing about message boards (especially for some that have the time/desire to post a shit-ton), anyone can join the middle of an adult conversation without reading up on what's really being discussed throughout multiple treads and accuse some of acting like a middle-school-er.

Funny, I remember the obnoxious kids in middle school doing stuff like that....

You could be right. I haven't read every word of this thread. If I misunderstood then my bad and apologies all around.

As I read it your comments seem pretty clear.

Lifelong, I've read many of your posts and you've always seemed like pretty level headed guy.

No worries.

Our conversation was part of a feeling Jeemie had given off since the deflate report has come out. Many of his comments have been in response to Beth-steel and he has made it very clear he feels that BB & Brady barely cheated, if at all, and even if they did a little it in no way really helped them. They are GOATs regardless....no ifs, ands, buts about it.

The fact that he called himself a realist is what most of the recent conversation stemmed around. I questioned how someone could call themselves a realist and call BB & Brady GOATs in light of all of the cheating (smoke) surrounding them throughout their success.

I know, they only cheated twice and were so bad at it they got caught both times, but they really didn't need to anyway...it was just for the heck of it. Maybe they were just bored with winning so much?!?!

Anyway...all caught up now. Have a great Memorial Day weekend!

[Legacy User]

And Troy Aikman thinks Bradys a cheat, as do many many other former QBs.

[Legacy User]

And Troy Aikman thinks Bradys a cheat, as do many many other former QBs.

Of course, as does Kelly.

Many are assuming deflating footballs and being one of the best skilled QBs ever to play the game are incommensurate propositions. I don't think Aikman has said that Brady is not one of the best QB's ever. Maybe he has.

As near as I can tell, here's the argument that keeps getting pushed (a valid modus tollens):
P1 If Brady were one of the GOATs, he wouldn't have cheated.
P2 He cheated.
C He is not one of the GOATs.

No one denies premise 2 and the conclusion is a valid inference. But why must premise 1 be accepted? By GOAT I mean skilled QB.

[DP39]

Jim friggin' Kelly thinks Brady is one of the best if not the best to ever play the game. I'd wager Kelly knows something about QB play and understands the rule changes. We have no idea how Brady or Manning would do. It's an untestable assumption. I would never trade Ben for Brady, but that's because I'm a homer and I love Ben's iron balls of steel play.

Didn't Kelly preface his comments with...we are really good friends?

I never said Brady wasn't already a good-to-very good QB before cheating.

People are constantly saying you can take an average QB and put him behind a great OL and he will look great. IMO, that's really the difference a good QB needs to be very good, maybe great. So, isn't it possibly, Brady (being a good QB) gets put behind a great OL (most of his successful career); gets put in the right position with pre-defensive signals; has the luxury of fewer team fumbles and better passing due to deflated footballs; and god knows what other advantages all which helps him appear (through wins/stats) to be a GOAT?

What other good QBs would appear to be (through wins/stats) GOATs with enough illegal advantages? I say more than a few...

[Legacy User]

Jim friggin' Kelly thinks Brady is one of the best if not the best to ever play the game. I'd wager Kelly knows something about QB play and understands the rule changes. We have no idea how Brady or Manning would do. It's an untestable assumption. I would never trade Ben for Brady, but that's because I'm a homer and I love Ben's iron balls of steel play.

Didn't Kelly preface his comments with...we are really good friends?

I never said Brady wasn't already a good-to-very good QB before cheating.

People are constantly saying you can take an average QB and put him behind a great OL and he will look great. IMO, that's really the difference a good QB needs to be very good, maybe great. So, isn't it possibly, Brady (being a good QB) gets put behind a great OL (most of his successful career); gets put in the right position with pre-defensive signals; has the luxury of fewer team fumbles and better passing due to deflated footballs; and god knows what other advantages all which helps him appear (through wins/stats) to be a GOAT?

What other good QBs would appear to be (through wins/stats) GOATs with enough illegal advantages? I say more than a few...

Exactly right, what percentage of his supposed greatness can we attribute to cheating (spygate and deflated footballs)? I'm not about to try to figure it out. I also consider him a good, probably even very good QB, but hes had the benefit of 2 cheating scandals and bs tuck rule propping him up so he doesn't enter the equation for me as far as GOAT is concerned.

[Legacy User]

Didn't Kelly preface his comments with...we are really good friends?

Didn't stop Kelly from calling his good friend a cheater.

People are constantly saying you can take an average QB and put him behind a great OL and he will look great. IMO, that's really the difference a good QB needs to be very good, maybe great. So, isn't it possibly, Brady (being a good QB) gets put behind a great OL (most of his successful career);

Sure, but why should I accept Brady's o line has been consistently great as opposed to Brady's ability to read D and get the ball out making his o line look great?

gets put in the right position with pre-defensive signals; has the luxury of fewer team fumbles and better passing due to deflated footballs; and god knows what other advantages all which helps him appear (through wins/stats) to be a GOAT?

Brady didn't suddenly start being unable to read defenses after spygate. His play in that regard has remained spectacular.

I don't know how much the extent to which the ball has been deflated has enabled better passing statistics. But his legacy is screwed because of it. But the ball could be half empty, it is still means nothing regarding his pre and post snap reads.

What other good QBs would appear to be (through wins/stats) GOATs with enough illegal advantages? I say more than a few...

You might say it, but why should I believe it?

[DP39]

Didn't Kelly preface his comments with...we are really good friends?

Didn't stop Kelly from calling his good friend a cheater.

People are constantly saying you can take an average QB and put him behind a great OL and he will look great. IMO, that's really the difference a good QB needs to be very good, maybe great. So, isn't it possibly, Brady (being a good QB) gets put behind a great OL (most of his successful career);

Sure, but why should I accept Brady's o line has been consistently great as opposed to Brady's ability to read D and get the ball out making his o line look great?

gets put in the right position with pre-defensive signals; has the luxury of fewer team fumbles and better passing due to deflated footballs; and god knows what other advantages all which helps him appear (through wins/stats) to be a GOAT?

Brady didn't suddenly start being unable to read defenses after spygate. His play in that regard has remained spectacular.

I don't know how much the extent to which the ball has been deflated has enabled better passing statistics. But his legacy is screwed because of it. But the ball could be half empty, it is still means nothing regarding his pre and post snap reads.

What other good QBs would appear to be (through wins/stats) GOATs with enough illegal advantages? I say more than a few...

You might say it, but why should I believe it?

Actually, Kelly never called him a cheater. You could always tell he's the kind of guy that never tries to say anything too negative about anyone (especially after what he's been through lately). Watching the interview (again) I felt like he's an honest enough guy that he's not going to lie for a good friend, but he's not gonna through him under the bus in the process either.

So..this is what he said...
"There's no doubt. . . . There's no way that an equipment manager in the National Football League is going to do something to the football without the greatest quarterback ever to play knowing that, 'hey, I did something to this football, but he doesn't know about it.' He knew it."

As far as his OL, maybe you haven't actually watch Brady play much (outside of games against us), but I have and I mean a lot. Over the years his OL has been one of the best in the NFL. There have been many, many times you could count to 4 or 5 before Brady even had to move around a little.

The times that it wasn't as good (more recently) are the years they decided they had to get the ball out more quickly, and might I ad, long after Spygate, by using rubs and picks to get his WR open quick enough. It seems to me the games/teams that Brady has a tough time with are the ones that take his "system" away from him. Get in face and take away the comfy system that has been created for him and he falls apart. Not the sign of a GOAT imo.

Brady may be a GOAT, but he's a GOAT of things that don't define a GOAT QB imo. He's great at all things that aren't "real" football and that's why he's done those things, because he's not great at "real" football. And, if you have to ask me what "real" football is then maybe you should just watch a little more football first, but not Tom Brady.

But again, maybe good-to-very good, but not great imo. Lit, you're a smart guy and I'm not here to change your mind. Think what you want. I know you will. There are plenty of Pats fans that 100% agree with you.

[Legacy User]

Let the record show that I think Brady is a cheating cheater. I just can't say how much of an advantage he actually derived from the extent to which he had the balls deflated. But that is irrelevant to his being a cheating cheater. I do not watch Brady play that often. I watch when the Steelers play for the most part and catch other games every now and then.

I am not qualified to say what "real football" means. I liked the football the Ravens and Steelers of the 2000s played more than what I watch now.