While speaking to the Mad Dog on Sirius XM Radio, Terrell Suggs did the unthinkable. He called Tom Brady’s three rings questionable. OMG. You can’t do that to the Patriots, to Belichick. Come on Suggs, have some class for the classiest organization in sports.
HAHA the reality is Suggs had some reason for what he said, and for the record Suggs never called Brady’s rings tainted as every website/blog in the United States claims. Suggs merely said in reference to Brady’s rings, “I think, a questionable three” and although the word “questionable” may seem a little exaggerated, it may not be that out of line. Suggs first mentioned the “Tuck Rule” as a reason for the “questionable” nature of Brady’s rings. What Suggs claims in his conversation with the MAD DOG was that if the tuck rule was implemented during the epic Pats, Raider showdown in the 2001-2002 Divisional Playoff game, it may have resulted in Brady’s pass/tuck a fumble, which would have lead to an early exist to Brady’s Cinderella season. However my take is that rule changes like this which result in one team winning and the other losing occur in sports and are part of its nature, so to attribute the tuck rule as a reason for Brady’s rings being questionable does not hold much floppy ground.
ON THE OTHER HAND or TIT…Suggs’ second reason may hold some water. Videotaping or Spy Gate! NOOOO!!! It is in fact true that the Patriots were videotaping opponents during the 2001-2002 season (and subsequent seasons until finally being caught in September of 2007, after the Jets game). More so, they specifically taped the Rams’ pregame practice before Superbowl 36, and it must have given them even if minor, some sort of advantage. The Pats would also only win by 3 points, and you never know if they had not got their paparazzi on what would have been the outcome of that game. And if they had not won that first Brady Superbowl who knows if the Pats dynasty would have resulted. You know how it is in football, when you win everything is good but when you lose coaches/players leave, schemes differ, moral significantly changes etc…Also the next two Superbowls the Pats would win each by only 3 pts (2004 against Panthers and 2005 against Eagles), in which Spygate was not yet discovered SO who knows if Belichick would have gotten it in a few more times as a result of winning the Superbowl.
Finally, why is talking about Spygate such a hidden subject. It was discussed for quite a small amount of time, compared to my man Tim Donaghy, Roids in baseball, or irrevalent stories about foot fetishes, trash talking etc….(gotta love it though) and then the Pats were fined and that was it. Why has the NFL never had a full investigation on Spygate. Roger Goodell is all about investigations and the one that went into Spygate took as long as it takes me to eat a chicken cutlet. And on top of this GOODELL DESTROYED ALL THE SPY GATE TAPES. WHY? Not that I am in for extensive investigations, but if you are going to exclusively investigate Vick for dog fighting and Burress for being too gangsta with it and shooting himself, why not do a thorough investigation on Spygate. BUT WHAT DID GOODELL DO? He destroyed the Spygate tapes and senator Specter needed to call for a furthering of the investigation in 2008 (which eventually never went anywhere anyway…read the article yourself http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/23133282/).
So in the end calling Brady’s rings questionable does have some validity to it even though many may have been getting their Ray J on around the League. But the bigger issue is why has the NFL not looked into this manner of secret videotaping more when it could change the outcome of games on Sunday? I mean I understand now it is too late. But even if it was not, Goodell destroyed all the tapes anyway. WAY TO GO ROGER. Why don’t you just wait for the next time a black athlete gets drunk and does something stupid, and spend the next three months investigating that.