Jesus, did you take the most ridiculous headline on purpose?

A hurricane that put them on the road all year, staffed by players and coaches with their lives in utter turmoil and unable to focus much on football, or an eavesdropping program of which there is not a shred of proof and doesn't even make sense regardless. Hmmmmm.

Let the defense of the worst cheaters of the century commence!

An unnamed source has reported to me that ESPN has been bribing all sports journalists to specifically target scandals against the Saints. One journalist was said to receive $10,000 for getting the Saints coaches suspended through slanderous writing. Though I have no evidence to confirm or deny such a claim, I will report it with the full force of truth, which use to be reserved only for genuinely verifiable stories.

Seriously, I wonder if this is the same ESPN "source" that fingered Shockey as the "snitch."

jaylectricity: Let the defense of the worst cheaters of the century commence!

Difference being, obviously, there's proof of your actual cheating. Well, there was, but Goodell destroyed it.

Well, this was certainly the stupidest headline of all the candidates.

Apparently, "Who Dat?" refers to the faulty connection between the coaches room and the GM's suite.

Las Vegas will not be happy.

GAT_00: Saints butthurt is, well it's not the best butthurt. But it's top 10.

Actually there's been very little butthurt from us. Most fans agreed all involved in the bounty scandal needed to be punished. Just thought Payton's suspension was far too much.

downstairs: GAT_00: Saints butthurt is, well it's not the best butthurt. But it's top 10.

Actually there's been very little butthurt from us. Most fans agreed all involved in the bounty scandal needed to be punished. Just thought Payton's suspension was far too much.

No no, that's defending it and saying it was totally okay. And when you point out there's no evidence of any eavesdropping being true? You're defending it and "butthurt" in the least.

NFL eavesdropping. The difference between 8-8 and 3-13

And the 10-6 and a trip to the NFC Championship. Take a look at the three years you're detailing here. And then look back at what other events were going on in New Orleans around this time. You'll have some surprising findings.

I find it amusing that this comes out as soon as the statute of limitations for this is over (according to the guy on ESPN, this was against state and federal law, as well as the NFL rules).

fark the Saints.

MBK: I find it amusing that this comes out as soon as the statute of limitations for this is over (according to the guy on ESPN, this was against state and federal law, as well as the NFL rules).

fark the Saints.

I find it more amusing this comes out as soon as there's a massive scandal to give this story even more legs and, furthermore, on the eve of Goodell announcing player suspensions. Last time there was another chapter, as it were, out came the GW tape. The day before preseason starts, we'll find out Loomis personally put explosives to the levees, lol.

downstairs: GAT_00: Saints butthurt is, well it's not the best butthurt. But it's top 10.

Actually there's been very little butthurt from us. Most fans agreed all involved in the bounty scandal needed to be punished. Just thought Payton's suspension was far too much.

No, we're butthurt. It's extremely important to him that we are butthurt. It helps improve his sense of self worth that we experience persistent deep pain in our posteriors.

@@CBSSportsNFLNO
A Saints source to CBSSports.com on ESPN's allegations that GM Mickey Loomis could have eavesdropped on opposing teams from 2002-04 without being detected: "It is impossible to do (eavesdrop)," the source said. "Plus the NFL frequency coordinator would know and he knows every signal (where) this could happen. The NFL frequency coordinator controls every signal in the stadium so you can't do it."

I'm sure you can go dig up this frequency coordinator guy's phone number, ESPN.

/curious why NFL.com and NFL Network are ignoring this story

Congrats on picking the most trolling headline possible.

Clearly a hurricane and playing 16 consecutive road games wouldn't cause a downfall in a team's fortune. I'm sure losing the starting RB and starting QB during the season wouldn't impact their performance. Only the loss of the ability to cheat, that ability which had led them to an amazing 12-12 home record over the past three seasons (a span in which they had gone 13-11 on the road, where they couldn't gain that upper hand), could have crushed their spirits like that.

Subby, what the f**k are you doing?

robsul82: @@CBSSportsNFLNO
A Saints source to CBSSports.com on ESPN's allegations that GM Mickey Loomis could have eavesdropped on opposing teams from 2002-04 without being detected: "It is impossible to do (eavesdrop)," the source said. "Plus the NFL frequency coordinator would know and he knows every signal (where) this could happen. The NFL frequency coordinator controls every signal in the stadium so you can't do it."

From what's said in this article, it was a passive listening device which was hard-wired to the receiver in the Saints' box. Or in other words, it did not create any frequencies.

The only way this would create an authorized signal (frequency usage) would be if they were stupid enough to mount a wireless listening device somewhere.

/It's actually so remarkably simple to do this that I'm shocked teams apparently don't.

*unauthorized signal.

Harv72b: robsul82: @@CBSSportsNFLNO
A Saints source to CBSSports.com on ESPN's allegations that GM Mickey Loomis could have eavesdropped on opposing teams from 2002-04 without being detected: "It is impossible to do (eavesdrop)," the source said. "Plus the NFL frequency coordinator would know and he knows every signal (where) this could happen. The NFL frequency coordinator controls every signal in the stadium so you can't do it."

From what's said in this article, it was a passive listening device which was hard-wired to the receiver in the Saints' box. Or in other words, it did not create any frequencies.

The only way this would create an authorized signal (frequency usage) would be if they were stupid enough to mount a wireless listening device somewhere.

/It's actually so remarkably simple to do this that I'm shocked teams apparently don't.

Ohhhhh. Thanks for the info. Well, still no evidence beyond an allegation AFAIK.

GAT_00: That reads like a load of shiat. Impossible to do it? They cannot simply check every single milimeter of the spectrum.

That's apparently why they have those people employed. Harv explained how someone could go undetected without needing to be.

Super Chronic: "Outside the Lines" could not determine for certain whether Loomis ever made use of the electronic setup.

Or, for that matter, whether the aforesaid electronic setup existed. But hey, whatever.

Hey, they had page clicks to think about!

robsul82: jaylectricity: Let the defense of the worst cheaters of the century commence!

Difference being, obviously, there's proof of your actual cheating. Well, there was, but Goodell destroyed it.

Right. As opposed to the Saints where there's just admission and proof.

At this point the cognitive dissonance must just be killing you.

Keep defending those illigitimate cheaters. Real classy of you.

Leader O'Cola: because if anyone has proven themselves to be upfront, honest, and so forth in this last few months... he's one of them....

LMAO

/ suspend him 3 days before the draft!
// do it!

Prove otherwise. Until then, ESPN reporting this crap without any of that pesky "evidence" stuff is being ridiculous.

justtray: Right. As opposed to the Saints where there's just admission and proof.

At this point the cognitive dissonance must just be killing you.

Keep defending those illigitimate cheaters. Real classy of you.

I'll absolutely defend the Saints against an allegation that is supported by absolutely nothing. In the meantime, feel free to continue showing off how smart you are by throwing around "cognitive dissonance" while being unable to spell correctly.

Also just like to point out that the source is credible, unless he loves going to District Attorney's with the information just to get improsioned for lying, which I highly doubt.

But yeah, stay focused on your ever changing standard of proof, which, ironically, doesn't matter in the slightest for NFL to punish it's own players.

I'd say good luck, but your team is totally boned. Now you just gotta bend over and take it.

Slow To Return: robsul82: Prove otherwise. Until then, ESPN reporting this crap without any of that pesky "evidence" stuff is being ridiculous.

No one gives a shiat about facts, especially when they're reveling in your suffering. You're the closest most of us will ever come to meeting a real live human being Saints fan.

I'm a big boy, I can take it. In any case, "there's no proof of this" is a pretty solid tack to take.

justtray: robsul82: jaylectricity: Let the defense of the worst cheaters of the century commence!

Difference being, obviously, there's proof of your actual cheating. Well, there was, but Goodell destroyed it.

Right. As opposed to the Saints where there's just admission and proof.

At this point the cognitive dissonance must just be killing you.

Keep defending those illigitimate cheaters. Real classy of you.

Okay, I say the Saints should concede those third place division finishes in the years in question to the Minnesota Vikings. Happy?

robsul82: Slow To Return: robsul82: Prove otherwise. Until then, ESPN reporting this crap without any of that pesky "evidence" stuff is being ridiculous.

No one gives a shiat about facts, especially when they're reveling in your suffering. You're the closest most of us will ever come to meeting a real live human being Saints fan.

I'm a big boy, I can take it. In any case, "there's no proof of this" is a pretty solid tack to take.

Ask Rothlisberger how that went for him. I'm sure you were defending him as well right? Should I google you to find out?

justtray: Also just like to point out that the source is credible, unless he loves going to District Attorney's with the information just to get improsioned for lying, which I highly doubt.

You heard it here first, folks, you are automatically credible if you make allegations to a U.S. attorney, as no one has ever brought untrue allegations to them. Thanks!

justtray: But yeah, stay focused on your ever changing standard of proof, which

means any proof. At all. But please do try to keep punching out of that corner.

justtray: Also just like to point out that the source is credible, unless he loves going to District Attorney's with the information just to get improsioned for lying, which I highly doubt.

But yeah, stay focused on your ever changing standard of proof, which, ironically, doesn't matter in the slightest for NFL to punish it's own players.

I'd say good luck, but your team is totally boned. Now you just gotta bend over and take it.

There's a big difference between the US Attorney and the District Attorney. And I doubt anything will come if that since the statute of limitations ran a couple of years ago.

robsul82: justtray: Also just like to point out that the source is credible, unless he loves going to District Attorney's with the information just to get improsioned for lying, which I highly doubt.

You heard it here first, folks, you are automatically credible if you make allegations to a U.S. attorney, as no one has ever brought untrue allegations to them. Thanks!

justtray: But yeah, stay focused on your ever changing standard of proof, which

means any proof. At all. But please do try to keep punching out of that corner.

What would be proof to you? Is this gonna be like Dave Chappelle R Kelly thing? I'm honestly curious. Other than having someone who was present, under oath, what would you need to admit you're wrong and you were wrong to defend them? Loomis to admit it? The actual device to be found? What specifically. Again - its the NFL so none of this matters, and therefore your entire argument is moot, but I'm curious how deep your denial goes.

justtray: robsul82: Slow To Return: robsul82: Prove otherwise. Until then, ESPN reporting this crap without any of that pesky "evidence" stuff is being ridiculous.

No one gives a shiat about facts, especially when they're reveling in your suffering. You're the closest most of us will ever come to meeting a real live human being Saints fan.

I'm a big boy, I can take it. In any case, "there's no proof of this" is a pretty solid tack to take.

Ask Rothlisberger how that went for him. I'm sure you were defending him as well right? Should I google you to find out?

Oh dear. I HAVE made Roethlisberger jokes. Trouble trouble. Oh well, making crude jokes about Roethlisberger still doesn't equal any proof to this allegation. Should I expect you to keep being extraneous topics to the conversation because you REALLY don't like the fact that there's no proof of any eavesdropping, or?

robsul82: justtray: robsul82: Slow To Return: robsul82: Prove otherwise. Until then, ESPN reporting this crap without any of that pesky "evidence" stuff is being ridiculous.

No one gives a shiat about facts, especially when they're reveling in your suffering. You're the closest most of us will ever come to meeting a real live human being Saints fan.

I'm a big boy, I can take it. In any case, "there's no proof of this" is a pretty solid tack to take.

Ask Rothlisberger how that went for him. I'm sure you were defending him as well right? Should I google you to find out?

Oh dear. I HAVE made Roethlisberger jokes. Trouble trouble. Oh well, making crude jokes about Roethlisberger still doesn't equal any proof to this allegation. Should I expect you to keep being extraneous topics to the conversation because you REALLY don't like the fact that there's no proof of any eavesdropping, or?

As you can guess, I was going to point out how huge a hypocrite you would have to be to villify Roethlisberger while defending the Saints using the same argument.

Again, proof is an invalid argument. It's not needed, this isn't a court case... yet. You know that though. You're just arguing disingenously because its your team, I get it. I just want to see how blindly devoted you are so that others know for sure your true motivations in this thread.