I appreciate your vigorous debate. Here we go on slow Friday:

There is a big difference between a coach making a premeditated decision when the game’s locked at a 99% win percentage vs. a player missing on a play. Maybe it’s like one is something that SHOULD happen and the other is something that COULD happen. Of course every game can get picked apart in these little moments, but no one talks about the missed layups in the championship loss where Chris Webber called the timeout he didn’t have in the final seconds.

For the record, I went back to 2006 and saw 2 more losses against both Denver and Indy. I guess Spygate was maybe in like 2007, but was counting everything since Pats won the Philly Superbowl.

And you can try and qualify my comparisons for NE/ATL vs SEA, but I could obviously come back with other little details like how hot each team was, rookie development, injuries, etc. Again, the little things go on and on. You sound smart enough to know that their head-to-head-to-head comparison is a simple way to evaluate them all, something which these Ringer brainiacs neglected.

So when the Pats take down the Rams and Panthers by literally the slimmest of margins — the last-second FG — you think something like stealing their plays didn’t matter? Other guys maybe taped too, but does that excuse them? And this behavior was obviously illegal because they got punished for it, right? And maybe it’s illegal because it provides some advantage? So that negates your argument that it was either A) okay and B) didn’t matter.

And then if you think Belichick’s cheating ended with Spygate, I think you’re quite naive there too. Beyond his obvious propensity to push the limits of rules — from recent shenanigans like eligible/ineligible receivers and squabbing kickoffs — let alone the more salacious accusations of deflategate, radio interference, locker room eavesdropping — the guy definitely pushes the boundaries of “tactical genius” vs. “cheater.” My simple point is that whatever these nebulous advantages are, you know he’s taking every one he can wherever he can, especially at home. Thus they all start to be neutralized on the road. How else do you excuse a coach with such a killer overall/home record against such a disproportionately bad road one?

Overall, you’re a smart guy with some wiley tactics for trying to punch little holes in little things, but you’re missing some simple ideas in the big picture.

For the record, I think Belichick is easily the greatest coach ever in all sports, despite everything I said above (Well, maybe Wooden was better.) But I also hate his guts, and hope they lose miserably on Sunday.