Sources: Goodell determines Pats broke rules by taping Jets' signals

[VPI97]

None of them have said there shouldn't be a punishment.
Yeah, but I've seen at least two people speculate that all of this was just Belichick trying to help out the league by calling attention to the problem.

He's a hero, you know.

[Kodos]

Although they have said there should be a minimal penalty (like a third round pick matters).

[molson]

Well from what I gather they/you feel like the Patriots don't deserve the harsh punishment that may come down.

Not me, I think they screwed up big time. I wouldn't be against any punishment the NFL gave, short of forfieture.

I'm pissed at the Pats for doing this, for tainting what might be a great season.

I only got riled up later in the thread, once it the topic turned (as it always does) to how Pats fans are assholes.

[Kodos]

Yeah, but I've seen at least two people speculate that all of this was just Belichick trying to help out the league by calling attention to the problem.

He's a hero, you know.

A hero who apparently cheats in both his private and public life. :)

[VPI97]

It's facinating how people can know so much about a large, eclectic group of fans.

That's my biggest pet peeve in all this.

everyone calls us assholes

.

[molson]

Yeah, but I've seen at least two people speculate that all of this was just Belichick trying to help out the league by calling attention to the problem.

He's a hero, you know.

So what? I've seen MORE than two people say the Pats should lose their franchise over this.

There's loonies on every side. It doesn't say anything about the rest of us.

[Kodos]

Having moved to CT in the last year, I can verify how annoying Pats fans are. And by extension, Red Sox fans. My stepfather-in-law is a big enough homer that he almost makes me root for the Yankees when they play Boston. And I think the Yankees are one of the most vile teams in all of sport.

[larrymcg421]

So what? I've seen MORE than two people say the Pats should lose their franchise over this.

There's loonies on every side. It doesn't say anything about the rest of us.

In this thread? I must have missed that.

[rkmsuf]

Although they have said there should be a minimal penalty (like a third round pick matters).

there's no pleasing everyone lined up to take down NE. if it's a third and a 5th then it should have been more. if it's fines then it should have been picks. if it's a suspension it should be a forfeit.

really the only thing that would satisfy a lot of people would be castration

[wade moore]

I think you gather incorrectly. The ones clamoring for beheadings and forfeits are the funny ones.

So what? I've seen MORE than two people say the Pats should lose their franchise over this.

There's loonies on every side. It doesn't say anything about the rest of us.

In this thread? I must have missed that.


yes yes.

This is what is driving me CRAZY in this thread. Let's talk about it amongst the people here, continually bringing up what loonies on other message boards are saying in your arguments is getting way old and way obnoxious.

[Kodos]

I think it should be a high fine and picks. :D

[molson]

In this thread? I must have missed that.

I didn't mean this thread, though I don't recall seeing Bellichick called a hero either, so I thought you were talking about the world/internet as a whole. I was just making a point of how silly it is to do that.

All I know is that I was a loyal fan for a shitty team for over a decade. Then they got good. Only then did I feel the need to defend myself for rooting for them. It's been a facinating transition.

[Kodos]

there's no pleasing everyone lined up to take down NE. if it's a third and a 5th then it should have been more. if it's fines then it should have been picks. if it's a suspension it should be a forfeit.

really the only thing that would satisfy a lot of people would be castration

Maybe it would help you be more punishment oreinted if you imagined Dan Marino had done it, instead of Beliupchuck.

[Abe Sargent]

Every team does it, eh? I doubt it, but name me another fan who has actually gotten his team, on their website, to say that they do NOT do it:

hxxp://www.jaguars.com/news/article.aspx?id=6316

(It's the final question)

To summarize, I asked, as part of a daily Q&A for Jaguars.com:

Abe from Ypsilanti, MI: Do the Jaguars tape or record opposing team signals like the Patriots were suspected to have done on Sunday?
Vic: No, but they have video of Bill Polian turning up the volume on a speaker.



There you are, an official denial by my team spurred by me. :)

-Abe

[wade moore]

Every team does it, eh? I doubt it, but name me another fan who has actually gotten his team, on their website, to say that they do NOT do it:

hxxp://www.jaguars.com/news/article.aspx?id=6316

(It's the final question)

To summarize, I asked, as part of a daily Q&A for Jaguars.com:

Abe from Ypsilanti, MI: Do the Jaguars tape or record opposing team signals like the Patriots were suspected to have done on Sunday?
Vic: No, but they have video of Bill Polian turning up the volume on a speaker.



There you are, an official denial by my team spurred by me. :)

-Abe

Is that really an official team rep? I find it surprising that a team rep would make that Polian comment to some shmuck on an internet chat.

[Abe Sargent]

Is that really an official team rep? I find it surprising that a team rep would make that Polian comment to some shmuck on an internet chat.

It's not an internet chat, it's a Q&A post every day on their website, by Vic Ketchman, and he brings his opinion in a lit. He hinted that Byron would be let go days before it was announced, for example. Hundreds of questions are submitted daily, he choose which to answer, and then posts it as a regular feature.

He also has a great sense of humor.

[Abe Sargent]

Oh, and the Ask Vic column on Jaguars.com is one of the best things going on the Internet in the world of sports - its amazing! I love him.

[Abe Sargent]

Here's a classic Vic from today:

David from Lincoln, NE: Obviously, the Patriots are going to be punished in some way or another, but what I would like to know is why didn't Marcus Stroud get in trouble last year for having a video camera on the bench in Philadelphia?

Vic: Probably because he didn’t take the camera behind the Eagles bench and point it at the Eagles coach giving hand signals to the defense. If you must know the truth, I gave Marcus the camera and asked him to get some video of the Eagles cheerleaders.

[wade moore]

It's not an internet chat, it's a Q&A post every day on their website, by Vic Ketchman, and he brings his opinion in a lit. He hinted that Byron would be let go days before it was announced, for example. Hundreds of questions are submitted daily, he choose which to answer, and then posts it as a regular feature.

He also has a great sense of humor.

Well, then that tells me it's not an official response. If he flows in jokes and opinion and "inside" info, that doesn't sound like an official team response to me.

[Abe Sargent]

or this:

Eric from Jacksonville: How come we don’t just give the radio helmets to the defensive player responsible for calling the play in the huddle, just like the QB has on offense? I know cheaters will find a way to cheat, but it seems like this particular temptation could be eliminated by simply giving the defense the technology present on the other side of the ball and eliminating the need for hand signals altogether.
Vic: I really don’t want to see this wonderful game turned into a mall arcade. Intelligent men will find ways to communicate, even without radio waves. The cave men did it. How about no coach-to-QB system? How about promoting a system in which teams are rewarded for having quarterbacks capable of calling their own plays? How about a coach who’s smart enough to use cheating against cheaters? Third-base coaches routinely flash dummy signals the batter knows to ignore. Dummy signals protect the real signals because the other team doesn’t dare bite on the fake stuff. If you pitch-out enough on what you think is a steal sign, you’ll walk the batter, right? OK, so give the Patriots the fake stuff, right? The impact of this whole Patriots cheating thing is overplayed. The real impact is the loss of integrity the game has suffered as a result of its premier coach being exposed as an unsavory person. What’s the punishment? Keep him out of the Hall of Fame. That’s the best punishment. The Hall of Fame has long had a tolerance for crimes against man, but not for crimes against the game. The HOF tends to leave criminal law up to law enforcement, but stands firm in defense of the laws of football. This, in my opinion, is a classic case.

[Abe Sargent]

Well, then that tells me it's not an official response. If he flows in jokes and opinion and "inside" info, that doesn't sound like an official team response to me.

Vic is an old journalist with a ton of experience. He won't take the team on record for something unless he has checked his facts. He could have easily not chosen my question out of the hundreds that get asked.

[Butter]

Oh no, the Pats fans are tired of defending being Pats fans! Good heavens, what will we do? Just do what I've done about all the Bengal comments for 15 years... turn the other cheek.

This is getting close to the crybabiest thread ever on FOFC. Ever.

[wade moore]

Vic is an old journalist with a ton of experience. He won't take the team on record for something unless he has checked his facts. He could have easily not chosen my question out of the hundreds that get asked.

Again, you seem to be picking and choosing here.

So are the Jags officially saying they have video of Polian turning up the volume?

[watravaler]

Tom Brady*

It must be nice having the defense served on a platter.

[TroyF]

1. It's very important to realize that the Pats did nothing wrong in trying to decipher signs. This is allowed and EVERYONE does do it - both during the game and in looking at pre-game video. It's been going on for decades.

STOP IT. Stop justifying it. I don't care if every team does it. Irrelevant. I'm on a highway going 75 with the flow of traffic and I get caught, I WAS speeding. There is no defense or justification. I CHOSE to speed and I got caught. I deal with the price of that mistake. Period. End of discussion.

2. It appears (as I am sure the commish will rule) the Pats did break a rule by using video equipment to do it.

A rule they had been suspected of breaking before. A rule that the commish wanted to enforce so much so that he sent a memo to every team TELLING THEM NOT TO DO IT before the start of this season.

3. I don't think you can claim that the use of video equipment was a huge advantage over ordinary sign stealing techiques -- and that's the valid comparison here, not sign stealing vs. no sign stealing. Those claiming anything else are fooling themselves. This is a no-video rule breaking, not a no-sign-stealing rule breaking. With that said, it is an advantage. By the way, if the Pats had used the camera to video tape the hot dog vendor, the same rule would have been broken.

This is the most asinine thing in this post. It's ridiculous. Of course there is an advantage. If there wasn't, they wouldn't have done it. Nobody is saying Beli is an idiot. He's a smart man and that's a smart coaching staff. It was videotaped and not photographed because the video HELPS in a big way. If you truly believe what you wrote above, your coaching staff is a group of moronic jack asses who wear velcro because they can't tie their shoelaces. They knew what they were doing, they knew the risk if they got caught and they still did it. That tells me they think it's a pretty damned big advantage.

4. It needs to be cleared up that the Pats guy was NOT on the same side of the field as the Jets - as has been misreported. Although that does not really matter in the analysis. Likewise, the rumors about radio frequencies is unsubstantiated at this point, but I believe what people are talking about is the video guy using a microphone to talk to the staff -- NOT THE INTERCEPTION OF THE OTHER TEAM'S COMMUNICATIONS.

Who gives a crap where he was? He was filiming, in direct violation of league rules and a Goodall memo, their signals. I don't care if he was doing if from a bleepin blimp above the stadium. I don't and never did think there was interception of other teams communications. I thought and still believe the Pats had multiple streams for their own use. This entire thing is about using technology to streamline your communication better. From stealing signals to dissemenating information about those signals.

5. I am still puzzled by the use of a guy decked out in Pats gear, standing there with a camera pointed at the opposing sideline. It's so blatantly obvious, especially after getting warned. The only explanation I can come up with is that Belichick thinks the rule is stupid. He was going to flaunt it just to show how stupid it was. Which was a mistake if true -- see observation number.

The justification continues. It's amazing the level you are going to make it seem like the Pats did nothing wrong. In this justification, it's that Belichick is just a defiant guy who wants to rub Goodall's face in the dirt because he thinks it's a stupid rule. Then, after the game, he was going to flaunt it and show the NFL what was happening. Is this like those guys on "To Catch a Predator" who show up and say they were just trying to warn the 13 year old about the dangers posed online? BS. He knew what he was doing and that it was against the rules. He did it because he was getting an advantage. Period.

6. This is huge public relations disaster for the team and Belichick. And it will hurt them in the pocketbook because of it.

Yes and no. I'm sure Goodall will issue a fine, but it won't be that debilitating. They'll still sell out the stadiium every week. They'll still have thousands of people buying Brady jersies. The NFL shares a lot of the league revenue and they won't lose any of that. It's a PR disaster and Beli, but it isn't going to cost them much more than the fine that Goodall levies.

7. As a Pats' fan, my feeling is sort of like hearing your little brother punched some guy in the face and you later find out he did it for no reason. You still love the guy, but you're thinking "geez, did you really have to do that, I mean you were kind of acting like a jerk there."


Your brother would have punched the guy in the face for a reason. The Pats cheated for a reason. They did it to get an edge. It may not have even been for just this game. There was a purpose behind what they did.

It's fine to still be a fan. I'm still a fan of the Broncos and I know they cheated. I hated it then and still do, but you get over it. The one thing I'm happy about is that I never tried to justify the action with excuses. It was wrong then, it's still wrong and I'm ashamed the team did it. There is no justification for the Broncos actions and there is no debate as to why they did it. It gave them a competitive edge on the field. Period.

8. As stated, people calling for forfeitures, etc. are way off base. A rule was broken (a no video taping rule) - I'd call it neither a major one nor a minor one. I don't think it even compares to the secretive systematic circumvention of the salary cap by the Broncos or the 49ers; and in which it was PROVEN TO HAVE OCCURRED WHEN THE TEAMS WERE ACTUALLY WINNING THEIR CHAMPIONSHIPS. It deserves punishment. I think a 3rd round pick is about right. And a hefty fine.

More justification. Different time, different commish. Those teams paid their price. If the Broncos or Niners violated the cap this year, I think we can all agree Goodall would lay down a very, very large hammer. There is no question in my mind those teams would lose multiple first round picks for their actions. Goodall can't control what happened in the past. What he's shown, is that he will not take someone breaking his rules lightly. Players who do are gone for a long length of time. Teams that do have to be treated in the same way. (How many games did Ray Lewis get suspended for after his Super Bowl after party? That would be NONE. He was fined 250k. Should Pac-Man and Henry be upset that they were suspended for a conduct violation when a guy who was involved in a homicide got none? Again, different time, different commish.)

9. Belichick is not a nice man. He'll do everything he can to win. He won't make any friends doing it, and he'd just as soon as steal $10 buck from his mom's wallet if it guaranteed him an extra first down the next Sunday. But what he does is win games - by hook or by crook, and by most of the very same hook or by crook methods used by every coach. Every great coach does it. Guys like Jimmy Johnson, Bill Parcells, George Allen -- they all did it. As an example, if you think someone like Mangini is beyond slipping Reche Caldwell a few thousand bucks for tips on the Pats' gameplan, you are sadly mistaken. I find that unseemly too (and I am sure Belichick does it too), but perhaps not a technical rule violation. These guys are getting paid several millions of dollars to win football games. They're going to do it.

Yet more justification. There is none. He cheated. He disregarded a direct memo for the league office. He got caught. I don't care if Mangini, Johnson, Parcells or Allen did what they did. (To my knowledge none of them were hit with a league memo asking them to stop whatever it was they were doing) Belichick probably paid Tim Dwight the same amount of dough to dish on the Jets the same week BTW. It's irrelevant to the discussion because we don't know that money was exchanged and until we do there is no proof a league rule was broken.

10. Now, can we talk about the Chargers game? I have no idea on how the Pats are going to win that one without being able to use a video camera. I guess a couple of guys with binoculars sitting next to the Chargers' guys with binoculars will have to suffice.

I feel for you man. It must be horrible to be a Pats fan. All the titles and all just have to suck. And God forbid anyone talks about a major rules violation that your favorite team was caught doing. Let's just sweep it under the rug and move on. It's so not a big deal that Belichick defied the league to do it. (I'm sorry, I forgot, he was just showing his disdane for a stupid rule, my bad.)

My advice? Deal with it. It's going to be a story for awhile and it isn't going away. You as a fan didn't make that choice and don't need to try to defend them for doing it. They made a mistake and if it wasn't a mistake and it wasn't cheating, they'll explain it all away to Goodall and show him how they didn't defy his orders. Then it's all cleared up and we move on. If they can't do that, they are cheaters. Cheaters that were caught. If they didn't want to deal with the consequences, they shouldn't have done it.

Stop justifying what they did. Stop pretending everyone saying they are cheats are wrong. (we aren't, they did what they did). Just say "we were wrong, we got caught, we have to pay the price, I'm still a fan" That's it.i'm good with it. They have a talented team, stealing signs of not. But they got caught and they can deal with the PR fallout for it. Life will go on.

FWIW, I think a first round pick should be taken away and given to the Jets. Harsh? Hell yeah. Very harsh. That's the price you pay for openly snubbing your nose at the rules. This was a calculated decision by an organization. That cannot go without severe punishment unless Goodall wants to start going easier on the players. Don't worry, I'm not the commish, they won't lose a 1rst. Likely a 3/5/7 and then move on would be my guess.

[rkmsuf]

Maybe it would help you be more punishment oreinted if you imagined Dan Marino had done it, instead of Beliupchuck.

Oh what I'd do to Marino.

Decorum prevents me from elaborating.

[rkmsuf]

troy just gave birth

[larrymcg421]

I didn't mean this thread, though I don't recall seeing Bellichick called a hero either, so I thought you were talking about the world/internet as a whole. I was just making a point of how silly it is to do that.

He wasn't called a hero, but people did speculate that maybe Belichik did it to call attention to the problem, which I think is an extremely silly argument. Like Vick was calling attention to the evils of dogfighting.

All I know is that I was a loyal fan for a shitty team for over a decade. Then they got good. Only then did I feel the need to defend myself for rooting for them. It's been a facinating transition.

But is that really so bad? I'm sure, say, Cardinals or Raiders fans would love to have the same problem.

"My Oakland Raiders looking good with three Superbowl trophies."

It just seems like the Pats fans are complaining about it in this thread a bit too much, especially when many of the complaints are not about things that anyone here has said. I mean, I've heard a ton of vicious crap about Dan Marino ("overrated", "choker", "Jay Fiedler was better") over the years on talk radio and idiot message boards, but I don't make a post and go off on a rant about it unless it happens here.

[gstelmack]

Yeah, but I've seen at least two people speculate that all of this was just Belichick trying to help out the league by calling attention to the problem.

He's a hero, you know.

Yawn. I said this was a possibility based on Belichik's history of deviousness and the complete obviousness of this, and also said they were wrong to do it and deserve punishment for having done so. And I've expressed my disappointment in the team for having done this.

Taking away one of those second or third rounders they've been stockpiling for a few years plus a fine seems very appropriate.

But hey, I'm just an obnoxious arrogant Patriots fan. As opposed to the obnoxious and arrogant Eagles fans, and the obnoxious and arrogant Dallas fans, and the obnoxious and arrogant Broncos fans, and the obnoxious and arrogant Raiders fans, ...

[rkmsuf]

and the obnoxious and arrogant Raiders fans,

I'm jbmagic, beotch!

[gstelmack]

Look, many of you may think Pats fans are "defending" Belichick and the team with all these theories about what they might have really been doing, when the reality is we're just perplexed that he'd do something this stupid in such an obvious manner.

[larrymcg421]

But hey, I'm just an obnoxious arrogant Patriots fan. As opposed to the obnoxious and arrogant Eagles fans, and the obnoxious and arrogant Dallas fans, and the obnoxious and arrogant Broncos fans, and the obnoxious and arrogant Raiders fans, ...

Not sure the point of this comment. I don't think anyone is denying that such fans exist? I really don't get this Patriots fan persecution complex. Is it leftover aggravation from the Red Sox years?

[gstelmack]

Not sure the point of this comment. I don't think anyone is denying that such fans exist? I really don't get this Patriots fan persecution complex. Is it leftover aggravation from the Red Sox years?

My point is EVERY team has obnoxious fans, and I'm tired of people assuming that all of {insert team here}'s fans are obnoxious and arrogant because some of {insert team here}'s fans are obnoxious and arrogant.

[molson]

-Few Pats fans are defending what they did
-Few Pats fans don't think there should be a punishment
-Most fans are upset with the team for doing this
-A majority of Pats fans think the Patriots are singled out to some extent here, depending on how many teams do this (which we don't know yet).
-A majority of Pats fans think this is, above all, another shot fired in the Jets/Pats nonsense which has gone for years now.
-Every thread on FOFC which inolves the Patriots eventually turns into an attack on Patriots fans as a whole.
-Patriots fans respond to those attacks in a variety of ways, all criticized.

Just felt the need to sum up.

But ya, at the end of the day, I'd rather be an obnoxious fan of a team that's given me so much enjoyment than the alternative.

[gstelmack]

Well summarized, molson.

[SirFozzie]

Bingo.

[rkmsuf]

"You're not taping this are you?"

"No never, never."

[lordscarlet]

I didn't mean this thread, though I don't recall seeing Bellichick called a hero either, so I thought you were talking about the world/internet as a whole. I was just making a point of how silly it is to do that.

All I know is that I was a loyal fan for a shitty team for over a decade. Then they got good. Only then did I feel the need to defend myself for rooting for them. It's been a facinating transition.

I was a Yankees fan for 15(ish) years when they were shitty (early 80s until their first world series in the 90s). Yet people say what assholes Yankee fans are (for the record, now that I have a true home team, I don't particularly care about the Yankees). Just because you supported a team while it was bad (and yes, I know you'll say "but they were dominant before that") doesn't mean you have a right to be an asshole once they are good.

And, as many have said, I don't understand this inferiority complex that Pats fans have. Everyone I know thinks the Pats are a great story. They are a true "America's Team" unlike the Cowboys being dubbed as such. Do people in the division or that regularly play them have some venom? Sure. But fans as a whole feel good things about the Pats, Tom Brady, etc. (Maybe not the coach)

[wade moore]

-Every thread on FOFC which inolves the Patriots eventually turns into an attack on Patriots fans as a whole.
-Patriots fans respond to those attacks in a variety of ways, all criticized.

I would argue that generally these two are reversed.

*shurg*

[rkmsuf]

Based on what Adam Schefter was saying on WEEI this morning:


1. Why were they videotaping the sidelines? According to Schefter's sources, the Patriots have a "DNA" book on every player and coach in the league and these tapes are part of building that book. That is why NE recorded Minnesota and other teams they don't play often -- because you never know when that personnel winds up on a team that they DO play frequently. And in light of that information, it stands to reason that this has a lot more to do with how these INDIVIDUALS react to different things on the field than it does with what THE TEAM is doing (i.e. what their signals are). Bottom line, they were not recording the sidelines for any real-time in-game impact.

2. Why did BB keep doing it? It sounds like (again according to schefter's sources) he was under the assumption (right or wrong) that recording was allowable so long as no club staff had access to the camera or tapes DURING THE GAME (see above). This also explains why they were doing it so "brazenly" out in the open. They didn't think it was illegal under the circumstances. If they did, they would have done it more covertly.

[molson]

I was a Yankees fan for 15(ish) years when they were shitty (early 80s until their first world series in the 90s). Yet people say what assholes Yankee fans are (for the record, now that I have a true home team, I don't particularly care about the Yankees). Just because you supported a team while it was bad (and yes, I know you'll say "but they were dominant before that") doesn't mean you have a right to be an asshole once they are good.



I agree with all that.

I just don't see where any Patriots fans are being assholes in this thread.

[wade moore]

I agree with all that.

I just don't see where any Patriots fans are being assholes in this thread.

I don't think anyone really has in this thread, but in threads in the past....

[VPI97]

IS BRADY TARNISHED, TOO?


At the risk of inviting another 500 or so e-mails, we need to address a twist to this whole Patriots Act ordeal that we have yet to tackle, but that we have been pondering for the past 36 hours or so.

Do the revelations of stolen defensive signals diminish the reputation and perceived abilities of quarterback Tom Brady?

If the goal of the brazenly overt operations was to help the team know the tactics that an opposing defense would employ on a given play (either on game day or the next time the two teams met), the player squarely in the eye of the storm of information was Brady. And, surely, he knew (or at least suspected) that the intelligence that the offensive coaches had about what a given defense might be doing didn't come from legitimate methods.

So, as an industry source posed the question to us this morning, what did Brady know, and when did he know it?

Unless and until Brady comes clean with a full and frank -- and credible -- explanation about his first-hand experiences, it fairly can be presumed that his legend has been fueled by the advantage derived from the actions for which the Patriots undoubtedly will be punished, as soon as Friday.

How many times has Brady come up with a key play late in a close game? In those occasions, how many times did he know exactly what the defense would be doing?

Part of the effectiveness of a blitz is the element of surprise. And a quarterback's challenge in that situation is to spot the corresponding gap in the coverage, and to get the ball to the receiver who'll likely be wide open in the sliver of time that the quarterback has to unload the ball before landing on his butt.

If the quarterback knows that the blitz is coming before the play is snapped, and if he knows who'll be blitzing, the task of finding that open receiver suddenly becomes a lot easier.

How many times have we seen Brady fire the ball to a wide open receiver an instant after Brady got the snap? How, in those cases, did he know so quickly that the guy would be open?

Though we realize that there are many factors that influence the ability of the team to achieve success on the field, most of which are unrelated to cheating, the added advantage that can come from knowing what the defense is going to do can make a huge difference. Otherwise, the Patriots (and other teams) wouldn't be devoting time and effort and money in order to find out, through legitimate and/or illegitimate means.

As we see it, the fact that the Patriots did what they allegedly/apparently/actually did creates a presumption that a benefit came from it. The fact that Brady has been the quarterback since 2001 creates a presumption that he knew or should have known what was going on. The fact that he took less money to stay in New England suggests that he knew (or feared) that he might not be able to replicate his success in a system that doesn't involve videotaping defensive signals. So unless he comes clean, we think it's fair to believe that, but for the added benefits that came from knowing what the defense was doing via techniques that crossed the line, he might have performed more like a sixth-round draft pick and less like a future Hall of Famer.


Regardless of whether he opts not to disclose what he knew and when he knew it, we think that Brady will be required to achieve a high level of success under another coach, and possibly with another team, before he is regarded as being truly worthy of Canton.

Hmmm...

[rkmsuf]

Hmmm...


people have completely lost their minds

[VPI97]

people have completely lost their minds
lol

I'm agree. I think PFT went WAY over the top with that one.

[gstelmack]

Brady has already stated he did not know about this. He is surely getting playcalls from the coaches, and they MAY have inside info he's not aware of, which may amount to the same thing in the end, but Brady's claim has been that he did not know this particular activity was occurring.

[Chubby]

Brady has already stated he did not know about this. He is surely getting playcalls from the coaches, and they MAY have inside info he's not aware of, which may amount to the same thing in the end, but Brady's claim has been that he did not know this particular activity was occurring.

Did anyone really suspect he'd say somthing different?

[rkmsuf]

Did anyone really suspect he'd say somthing different?

I wish he'd say "fuck yeah I knew. We might even launch a spy plane next game."

The way the world is carrying on I almost want them to cheat more and win the next 10 superbowls.

[larrymcg421]

At the risk of inviting another 500 or so e-mails

What an incredibly stupid way to start that article.

[BishopMVP]

The fact that he took less money to stay in New England suggests that he knew (or feared) that he might not be able to replicate his success in a system that doesn't involve videotaping defensive signals. So unless he comes clean, we think it's fair to believe that, but for the added benefits that came from knowing what the defense was doing via techniques that crossed the line, he might have performed more like a sixth-round draft pick and less like a future Hall of Famer.

Regardless of whether he opts not to disclose what he knew and when he knew it, we think that Brady will be required to achieve a high level of success under another coach, and possibly with another team, before he is regarded as being truly worthy of Canton.when did terrell davis get hired by pft?

[st.cronin]

GOD I FUCKING HATE THE PATRIOTS

This is all I hear when Troy talks about the Patriots.

[wade moore]

lol

I'm agree. I think PFT went WAY over the top with that one.

Hah. Yeah, wow.

[larrymcg421]

The fact that he took less money to stay in New England suggests that he knew (or feared) that he might not be able to replicate his success in a system that doesn't involve videotaping defensive signals.


What kind of assinine conclusion is that? I mean, he might have been worried that he wouldn't be as successful elsewhere, but how does that imply he knew there was cheating? It might just mean he knew that he was in a successful system and there was no reason to fuck with it.

[st.cronin]

Tom Brady did not take less money to stay in New England. He took less money from the Patriots, yes, but his total earning potential as a Patriot is much higher than it would be for any other team.

[albionmoonlight]

LOL at PFT.

[SirFozzie]

Thanks for proving our point, PFT. :)

[Deattribution]

When I saw this thread went another 3 pages since I last posted I figured surely something new had been brought up (news about the defensive mics ect) but I see it's just another 3 more pages about the 'persecuted' Pats. :rolleyes:

[lordscarlet]

I agree with all that.

I just don't see where any Patriots fans are being assholes in this thread.

I'm just speaking to your defense of the hypothetical that Patriots fans are assholes. :) You seemed to justify the possibility by the fact that you "suffered" through a decade of poor seasons. I think this whole damned thread is full of people defending themselves from insults/accusations that have not occurred in this thread (on both sides).

[Surtt]

From Yahoo Sports

New England coach Bill Belichick still won't comment on Patriots' alleged spying

When did this become alleged?

They have the tape, the commissioner has found them guilt, and Belichick hasn't even denied it.

[SirFozzie]

Point of order the commissioner has NOT found them guilty yet, all that's coming from is Mortenson.. but yes, Belichick has pretty much admitted it.

[molson]

You seemed to justify the possibility by the fact that you "suffered" through a decade of poor seasons. insults

That wasn't my point, I was just expressing how weird it is to be a fan of a horrible team, and then suddenly, when they start winning, you can't get through a discussion of the team without people bringing up how their fans suck.

[Kodos]

Too much success creates bad fans. It brings in the bandwagoners, and it makes longtime fans arrogant and cocky (but not funny). A fact of life in sports.

[Surtt]

Point of order the commissioner has NOT found them guilty yet, all that's coming from is Mortenson.. but yes, Belichick has pretty much admitted it.


If you can't trust Chris Mortensen, who can you trust?
< /sarcasm >


I stand corrected.

Mortensen reported: NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has determined that the New England Patriots violated league rules Sunday when they videotaped defensive signals by the New York Jets' coaches.

But Goodell hasn't officially said anything yet.

[gstelmack]

The status was the Goodell said that it looked like they had violated the rule, but the Patriots had not yet responded. Belichick has since responded about their interpretation of the rules. No information on what Goodell thinks after the Patriots response.

If you will, the Grand Jury found grounds to prosecute, the prosecution has laid out its case, the defense has rested, and we're still waiting to hear what the judge's decision is.

[rkmsuf]

Would be the funniest thing ever if the commissioner issued no penalties in this case.

[Kodos]

Would be the funniest thing ever if the commissioner issued no penalties in this case.


No. But banning Belichick from the league would be. :)

[rkmsuf]

No. But banning Belichick from the league would be. :)

he would not accept it

[Maple Leafs]

Too much success creates bad fans.
Yet another reason that Leaf Nation are the greatest fans in the world.

[Maple Leafs]

Would be the funniest thing ever if the commissioner issued no penalties in this case.
Or fined Mangini for being a tattle-tale.

[King of New York]

Yet another reason that Leaf Nation are the greatest fans in the world.

Heh heh :)

[Surtt]

Yet another reason that Leaf Nation are the greatest fan in the world.

Fixed it for you.

[Atocep]

Dr Z addresses this in his latest column. Some very interesting stuff in it.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/dr_z/09/13/cheating/index.html?eref=T1

Last year the Lions played the Patriots in Foxboro. At one point their coach, Rod Marinelli, phoned up to the press box, "There's a camera pointed right at our defensive coach making his calls. Is that allowed?" A Lions' employee called the NFL booth. No, it certainly was not. So the videotaper was stopped. Then after a while he began again. The same process was repeated and he was asked to stop again.
"At one point we had a good drive going against the Patriots," said one Lion who doesn't want his name involved in this mess, but was willing to talk about it. "Mike Martz really had 'em going. They were getting fouled up, lining up wrong, we were moving the ball. Then boom, the headset from the sidelines to the coaches' booth goes out.

"Next possession we were moving the ball again and the same thing happened. You know it only takes two or three plays to mess up a drive."
Matt Millen, the Lions' GM, was talking to Bengals' coach Marvin Lewis at the league meetings. He started telling him the story.

"Yeah, I know," Lewis said. "Headset went out. It happened to me in Foxboro, too."

As a former Patriots employee, Jets coach Eric Mangini must have known what was going on. So why didn't he have some kind of system of dummy calls set up to foul up the video surveillance?

"He did," says a former Patriots employee whose name cannot be used for obvious reasons. "He had three sets of signals being given, one real, two dummy. He had the same thing going when he beat the Patriots last year. But still, it means extra work, changing the way you prepare for a game. It means both clubs are not playing on the same level field, and that's what's wrong about it."

[thesloppy]

As a Lions fan, let me just say that if you have to cheat to beat the Lions you really DO have a problem.

[larrymcg421]

As a Lions fan, let me just say that if you have to cheat to beat the Lions you really DO have a problem.

I bet Matt Millen is now kicking himself for not trading those 1st round picks for stealth video equipment.

[thesloppy]

I think Millen did try to buy a competitive advantage, but he gave the cassh to Charles Rogers and Mike Williams and ended up with a dime bag and a sack of doughnuts.

[watravaler]

I expect ESPN/NFL to furiously direct all blame/punishment on BB, and BB alone. This thing needs to be crushed without airing the leagues truly dirty laundry. IMO, this taints everything about the BB era Patriots. History will certainly frown upon the dynasty. The golden boy QB may look a bit different without the benefit of seeing the opponents cards...

[wade moore]

If there was ever any factual evidence of the headset claims produced, that would be damning for the Pats - FAR more dramatic than this fiasco with the camera. The camera is bad, but as others have said it's not some over the top advantage. But if there really was proof that they are jamming the headset signals of other teams...

That being said, I'd be at least somewhat surprised if it were true and shocked if there is any real proof.

[VPI97]

If there was ever any factual evidence of the headset claims produced, that would be damning for the Pats - FAR more dramatic than this fiasco with the camera. The camera is bad, but as others have said it's not some over the top advantage. But if there really was proof that they are jamming the headset signals of other teams...

That being said, I'd be at least somewhat surprised if it were true and shocked if there is any real proof.
Well, one thing that will change is that IF the Pats actually jammed headsets, that practice will stop now that all this is hitting the media. ...but if these occurrences were simply mechanical failure (occam's razor), this seemingly gives free reign for it to be a post game topic should it occur again. Kinda like UFO sightings...if someone sees something weird in the sky, it's no big deal...but if you see something weird and you recently saw a program on UFO's, then you start to say you saw a UFO.

[jeff061]

This will all blow over. Until next year when the media pumps it up again around draft time when their spot is skipped.

I don't care what anyone says, it's not a big deal. Note Pats haters, I am not defending them or saying they shouldn't be penalized.

Sad I need to add that disclaimer.

[wade moore]

Well, one thing that will change is that IF the Pats actually jammed headsets, that practice will stop now that all this is hitting the media. ...but if these occurrences were simply mechanical failure (occam's razor), this seemingly gives free reign for it to be a post game topic should it occur again. Kinda like UFO sightings...if someone sees something weird in the sky, it's no big deal...but if you see something weird and you recently saw a program on UFO's, then you start to say you saw a UFO.

You are spot on.

[TargetPractice6]

This will all blow over. Until next year when the media pumps it up again around draft time when their spot is skipped.

I don't care what anyone says, it's not a big deal. Note Pats haters, I am not defending them or saying they shouldn't be penalized.

Sad I need to add that disclaimer.And Pats fans really can't figure out where the "haters" are coming from...

[SirFozzie]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/09/13/belichick/index.html

Interesting. First Day Pick (Don't think it will be a first rounder, probably a 2nd rounder), and a possible 2-3 week suspension of Belichick, to start after week 2) is what's being reported right now.

I think it's rather fair (harsh if it's a first rounder, 2nd rounder seems right), but let the conspiracy theories flow that Belichick would be available for the Chargers game, but miss games against the Bills, Bengals and Browns (two out of three that the Patriots could likely win without Belichick on the sidelines, and the third that would be more of a pickem or favor the Bengals)

[Buccaneer]

Troy, when they start suspending most players long-term for juice abuse that leads to shutting down teams and postponing your precious NFL, call me. Otherwise, just continue your hypocritical indignation.

[SirFozzie]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/09/13/belichick/index.html

Interesting. First Day Pick (Don't think it will be a first rounder, probably a 2nd rounder), and a possible 2-3 week suspension of Belichick, to start after week 2) is what's being reported right now.

I think it's rather fair (harsh if it's a first rounder, 2nd rounder seems right), but let the conspiracy theories flow that Belichick would be available for the Chargers game, but miss games against the Bills, Bengals and Browns (two out of three that the Patriots could likely win without Belichick on the sidelines, and the third that would be more of a pickem or favor the Bengals)

Apparently, According to ESPN's John Clayton, it's not going to be a first rounder because the NFLPA thinks it will hurt the player pool (one less new player coming in making 2+ million a year to start, I guess).

I don't like that reasoning, but understand that if they mess too much with the draft, the NFLPA can probably drag it out with the arbitrators and the like, and the NFL wants to put it behind them.

[molson]

This will all blow over. Until next year when the media pumps it up again around draft time when their spot is skipped.


I highly doubt that.

This will follow the Pats around, at least this season. If they lose decisively to the Chargers, the rumblings will be it's because they're now playing clean (which is an insult to the Chargers).

[wade moore]

I highly doubt that.

This will follow the Pats around, at least this season. If they lose decisively to the Chargers, the rumblings will be it's because they're now playing clean (which is an insult to the Chargers).
Yeah - this has to come up after every loss, especially if they have more than people expect them to this year.

[jeff061]

And Pats fans really can't figure out where the "haters" are coming from...

I'd say that about any team, Pats, Colts, Jets, whoever. This whole thing is stupid.

I posted the first link to this story in the game day thread, had no clue it would break out in the way it has.

[wade moore]

ESPN just reported during the WVU game that the Pats forfeit their 1st rounder if they make the playoffs.

I didn't have the sound on, so I don't know what happens if they don't make it - I'm assuminga 2nd. Did anyone else hear?

[henry296]

Decision from NFL:

Belichick fines 500K, Pats fined 250K and lose 1st round pick if make playoffs.

[Racer]

ESPN just reported during the WVU game that the Pats forfeit their 1st rounder if they make the playoffs.

I didn't have the sound on, so I don't know what happens if they don't make it - I'm assuminga 2nd. Did anyone else hear?

BB fined $500,000. $New England fined 250,000. Patriots lose a 1st rounder if they make the playoffs or a 2nd and 3rd rounder if they miss the playoffs.

[Maple Leafs]

No suspension, though.

[henry296]

ESPN just reported during the WVU game that the Pats forfeit their 1st rounder if they make the playoffs.

I didn't have the sound on, so I don't know what happens if they don't make it - I'm assuminga 2nd. Did anyone else hear?

ESPN.com says 2nd and 3rd if miss playoffs.

[Mantle2600]

Seems pretty fair, but probaly should have gotten at least a 1 game suspension.

[wade moore]

Anyone else find it backwards that BB is fined double what the team is?

Maybe it's just me but it seems that this has to be pretty sanctioned by the team - plus the team hurts from a fine less than an individual does.

[Maple Leafs]

Pats have the 49ers 1st rounder this year, though, correct?

[Maple Leafs]

Has this been posted yet?

http://bogp.com/recordingits.gif

[jeff061]

1st rounder is way too much. Should have been a 2nd or a 3rd and a 1 game suspension. But my homer satus definitely comes though in this ;).

[Grammaticus]

BB fined $500,000. $New England fined 250,000. Patriots lose a 1st rounder if they make the playoffs or a 2nd and 3rd rounder if they miss the playoffs.

They should have been banned from the playoffs this year.

As far as the NFLPA goes, the players are participants in the cheating. Doesn't give them much of a case against one less first round money slot.

[TroyF]

Troy, when they start suspending most players long-term for juice abuse that leads to shutting down teams and postponing your precious NFL, call me. Otherwise, just continue your hypocritical indignation.

Bucc, I consider you a friend, but could you please get a grip.

1) I didn't suggest Beli should or would get suspended. I suggested they lose a first round pick and that it be given to the Jets.

2) There is a system in place for juice abuse if they get caught during testing. I understand more are users. How many more? I dunno. Neither do you. But the NFL has a system in place to deal with them. This continues the justification for cheating. There is no justification and that has to stop. (and I'll say the same damned thing when a player gets caught with roids in his system. I don't give a damn if EVERY player is doing it in the league. you know the rules, you chose not to follow, you get what you deserve. Period.)
I've bashed baseball players who have done roids. I've bashed cheaters. I'm not inconsistent in my indignation of those types of people.

Some other comments:

St. Cronin: Of course, I hate the Pats. That's what the entire ten point rebuttal was about. In fact, all I did in there was attack the Pats, right? I didn't say they were a good team who didn't need to do it. I didn't give specific reasons why I thought Beli was in the wrong on this. I made irrational statements like saying the game should be forfeited or that the Pats shouldn't be allowed in the playoffs for two years. It was pure, 100%, unadulterated hate. You caught me.

As for the Pats building a league wide DNA, I'm proud of em. Curious though. . . Does this camera operate based off of where the defensive signal caller is standing? So you have to point a camera right at their signal caller and then it shows a wide angle shot of all the other guys on the sideline and their reactions to the play? You can have a note taker tracking players body language, reactions and noting their movements. You don't need the defensive play call to do that.

The commish ruled and now it's over in my book. The Pats will continue winning games. Brady is a great QB (an ALL TIME great QB) and he won't suddenly suck because the camera is off. Beli will continue putting terrific defensive game plans out there, because that's what he does. And the Patriots will think long and hard before they openly defy the commish again. (or any team. If my Broncos cheated the cap again, I'm sure I wouldn't see a first rounder in Denver for three or more years. It just strengthens the belief I held and voice earlier in the thread) We won't know for years the total impact the stealing of signals had, so it isn't really worth worrying about at this point.

One last thing: Go Patriots. (this week) Beat the hell out of the Chargers.

[Deattribution]

Dan Marino said it would be a huge advantage (even bigger in no huddle) because you would have a pretty good idea of what the defense is going to do - then you could adjust your play as necessary - going as far as saying the QB knows because they're told in their headset (ie, they're going to run double zone). Given that he's one of the best QBs ever, I'd have to say he'd know whether or not it would be an advantage.

[gstelmack]

Punishment is harsh, but needed to be. I don't have a problem with it.

On the headset thing, one thing I don't get is why everyone is all of a sudden going after that. Every year there are 2 or 3 games not involving the Patriots where a visiting coach complains about the comms in the stadium. All of a sudden it's the end of the world? Where has the indignation been for the last decade or more?

[wade moore]

Punishment is harsh, but needed to be. I don't have a problem with it.

On the headset thing, one thing I don't get is why everyone is all of a sudden going after that. Every year there are 2 or 3 games not involving the Patriots where a visiting coach complains about the comms in the stadium. All of a sudden it's the end of the world? Where has the indignation been for the last decade or more?

Yeah, seems like a pretty shaky case to me.

[TroyF]

Punishment is harsh, but needed to be. I don't have a problem with it.

On the headset thing, one thing I don't get is why everyone is all of a sudden going after that. Every year there are 2 or 3 games not involving the Patriots where a visiting coach complains about the comms in the stadium. All of a sudden it's the end of the world? Where has the indignation been for the last decade or more?


1) Because of stupid, petty jealousy.
2) Because everyone remember "that one time. . . " Not much different than a poker player who remembers all of his bad beats and never remembers his suckouts.
3) Because the Patriots got caught cheating. You suspect the guy down the street of stealing your bike. You can't prove it so you let it go. (What can you do, you have no proof) Then he gets convicted for stealing a bike. Now you have your proof. Maybe you say something.

1 and 2 are basic human nature that the Patriots will get unjustly criticized for. 3 is their own doing and something they have to be prepared for. It'll also go away if this is the only incident and if they, as expected, keep winning. If they get caught again, there will be a hell of a lot more stories than we have now. If they go 3-12 the rest of the year they'd certainly get flack. They won't cheat again and they won't go 3-12. So sit tight for a few weeks and all three of the above will go away, except by some idiots.

[Pyser]

why dont they just go to a headset type communications device for defenses, too? why should qbs be the only one who can be fed a play?

[SirFozzie]

They're going to go to it next year. Barely got voted down last year.

[JPhillips]

It'll happen soon, but it's more complicated than with QBs. What do you do for defensive packages without a MLB? What do you do if the MLB is injured and his replacement is the SLB? There are a number of practical concerns that haven't been worked out enough to get the two thirds vote.

[sabotai]

It'll happen soon, but it's more complicated than with QBs. What do you do for defensive packages without a MLB? What do you do if the MLB is injured and his replacement is the SLB? There are a number of practical concerns that haven't been worked out enough to get the two thirds vote.

As far as I understand it, the rule doesn't say the QB gets to wear a helmet with a comm device in it, but that one offensive player gets to wear a helmet with a comm device in it (It just doesn't make any sense to have anyone but the QB with the comm device).

The rule could be the same for defenses. Just allow one player on defense wear the comm helmet, regardless of position, and mark the helmet the same way the QB has his helmet marked with a sticker on the back of it.

[Galaril]

It seems like this won't hurt the Pats so much since they got two first rounders?
And apparently Clayton at ESPN thinks so as well

"Here's the problem with Goodell's decision. Whether by design or not, the Patriots had themselves covered for such a penalty because they are so good at what they do. They acquired the 49ers' first-round pick in a trade that enabled the 49ers to select Joe Staley. They have an additional third-round pick from the Raiders in a trade. They have enough draft choices to survive the loss of one first-round choice. "

NFL Penalty for Belichick,Pats far too light.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?id=3018407

[Swaggs]

It seems like this won't hurt the Pats so much since they got two first rounders?

I think it is still pretty punitive.

They are obviously well-managed and fortunate to have acquired an additional first rounder, but taking one away still takes away a lot of the flexibility they could have potentially had.

[Deattribution]

I think as long as it is stiff enough that nobody tries to do it again (which I think it is/was) that it's fair enough - nothing is going to fix whatever happen in the past, and nobody really knows what impact it had anyway.

Although I do wonder what kind of backlog of video they have and if that would still be any use. Other than that, I have no problem with it.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

This is not true. Especially since the league sent out a message emphasizing that videotaping of coaches booths, signal callers, etc was not allowed. Quit saying the same furor would be over taping the hot dog vendors because it's clearly not the same thing in the eyes of the league.

You clearly can't read my post that you quoted. I said it wasn't the same thing in terms of punishment. The rule is no video equipment period. If you filmed the hot dog guy, you would break the rule. That's what I was saying. I then went on to say that the punishment should in fact be more for filming the signs because it created a competitive advantage where filming the hot dog wouldn't. You clearly can't understand the difference between degrees of punishment.

[SirFozzie]

It seems like this won't hurt the Pats so much since they got two first rounders?
And apparently Clayton at ESPN thinks so as well

"Here's the problem with Goodell's decision. Whether by design or not, the Patriots had themselves covered for such a penalty because they are so good at what they do. They acquired the 49ers' first-round pick in a trade that enabled the 49ers to select Joe Staley. They have an additional third-round pick from the Raiders in a trade. They have enough draft choices to survive the loss of one first-round choice. "

NFL Penalty for Belichick,Pats far too light.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?id=3018407

Clayton's an idiot on this.

Basically, his point is "The Patriots should get a much stiffer penalty then say, the Raiders, because the Patriots are so much better then the Raiders"

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I am not sure how you can say this.
At the very least you can use the lens to get a close up view. In addition you can study them at leisure and match them up to the defensive play. It would not help real time. but the next time they played it would.

You are correct. I was only looking at it in terms of that particular game. Clearly, the more I think about it, there would definitely be an advantage for the next game. Judging by Belichick's second apology, this is clearly what was happening. It was providing an advantage for the next game -- mostly division rivals and teams they met later in the playoffs. To me now, this makes it worse than I originally thought. Only video would enable you to really make a go of the future game thing.

[sabotai]

I think it is still pretty punitive.

I think so too. There's enough talent in the drafts that having 2 1st rounders gives a team a ton of options (take a risk on one of the picks, various trade options, etc.), but taking one away takes all of those options away and is pretty close to them just handing over their pick in this year's draft to San Fran and getting nothing in return* (what they will get is basically trading up several or many spots, unless SF finishes with a better record than New England....hey, stop laughing!).

And while the $250,000 is pocket change to the Pats organization, that $500,000 fine to BB will hurt him a lot personally. I think the punishment the commish handed down was good enough.

* If the Pats make the playoffs.....just throwing that in for technicality issues since they will unless they have a monumental collapse this year.

[Young Drachma]

I don't think it's harsh enough. Screw Goodell.

[Logan]

Whether by design or not, the Patriots had themselves covered for such a penalty because they are so good at what they do.

Sorry, including this sentence makes him sound like a complete fucking moron.

[SirFozzie]

And now, the other side.

http://www.chicagosportsreview.com/inthemeantime/contentview.asp?c=200810

(One of the only reasons I'm posting this is cuz.. I thought New Englanders hated New York. This guy.. just.. wow)

[Logan]

And now, the other side.

http://www.chicagosportsreview.com/inthemeantime/contentview.asp?c=200810

(One of the only reasons I'm posting this is cuz.. I thought New Englanders hated New York. This guy.. just.. wow)

I saw the words, but that was too stupid to interpret.

[Greyroofoo]

Definitely not harsh enough.

I've lost faith in Goodell.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

1. It's very important to realize that the Pats did nothing wrong in trying to decipher signs. This is allowed and EVERYONE does do it - both during the game and in looking at pre-game video. It's been going on for decades.

STOP IT. Stop justifying it. I don't care if every team does it. Irrelevant. I'm on a highway going 75 with the flow of traffic and I get caught, I WAS speeding. There is no defense or justification. I CHOSE to speed and I got caught. I deal with the price of that mistake. Period. End of discussion.

2. It appears (as I am sure the commish will rule) the Pats did break a rule by using video equipment to do it.

A rule they had been suspected of breaking before. A rule that the commish wanted to enforce so much so that he sent a memo to every team TELLING THEM NOT TO DO IT before the start of this season.

3. I don't think you can claim that the use of video equipment was a huge advantage over ordinary sign stealing techiques -- and that's the valid comparison here, not sign stealing vs. no sign stealing. Those claiming anything else are fooling themselves. This is a no-video rule breaking, not a no-sign-stealing rule breaking. With that said, it is an advantage. By the way, if the Pats had used the camera to video tape the hot dog vendor, the same rule would have been broken.

This is the most asinine thing in this post. It's ridiculous. Of course there is an advantage. If there wasn't, they wouldn't have done it. Nobody is saying Beli is an idiot. He's a smart man and that's a smart coaching staff. It was videotaped and not photographed because the video HELPS in a big way. If you truly believe what you wrote above, your coaching staff is a group of moronic jack asses who wear velcro because they can't tie their shoelaces. They knew what they were doing, they knew the risk if they got caught and they still did it. That tells me they think it's a pretty damned big advantage.

4. It needs to be cleared up that the Pats guy was NOT on the same side of the field as the Jets - as has been misreported. Although that does not really matter in the analysis. Likewise, the rumors about radio frequencies is unsubstantiated at this point, but I believe what people are talking about is the video guy using a microphone to talk to the staff -- NOT THE INTERCEPTION OF THE OTHER TEAM'S COMMUNICATIONS.

Who gives a crap where he was? He was filiming, in direct violation of league rules and a Goodall memo, their signals. I don't care if he was doing if from a bleepin blimp above the stadium. I don't and never did think there was interception of other teams communications. I thought and still believe the Pats had multiple streams for their own use. This entire thing is about using technology to streamline your communication better. From stealing signals to dissemenating information about those signals.

5. I am still puzzled by the use of a guy decked out in Pats gear, standing there with a camera pointed at the opposing sideline. It's so blatantly obvious, especially after getting warned. The only explanation I can come up with is that Belichick thinks the rule is stupid. He was going to flaunt it just to show how stupid it was. Which was a mistake if true -- see observation number.

The justification continues. It's amazing the level you are going to make it seem like the Pats did nothing wrong. In this justification, it's that Belichick is just a defiant guy who wants to rub Goodall's face in the dirt because he thinks it's a stupid rule. Then, after the game, he was going to flaunt it and show the NFL what was happening. Is this like those guys on "To Catch a Predator" who show up and say they were just trying to warn the 13 year old about the dangers posed online? BS. He knew what he was doing and that it was against the rules. He did it because he was getting an advantage. Period.

6. This is huge public relations disaster for the team and Belichick. And it will hurt them in the pocketbook because of it.

Yes and no. I'm sure Goodall will issue a fine, but it won't be that debilitating. They'll still sell out the stadiium every week. They'll still have thousands of people buying Brady jersies. The NFL shares a lot of the league revenue and they won't lose any of that. It's a PR disaster and Beli, but it isn't going to cost them much more than the fine that Goodall levies.

7. As a Pats' fan, my feeling is sort of like hearing your little brother punched some guy in the face and you later find out he did it for no reason. You still love the guy, but you're thinking "geez, did you really have to do that, I mean you were kind of acting like a jerk there."


Your brother would have punched the guy in the face for a reason. The Pats cheated for a reason. They did it to get an edge. It may not have even been for just this game. There was a purpose behind what they did.

It's fine to still be a fan. I'm still a fan of the Broncos and I know they cheated. I hated it then and still do, but you get over it. The one thing I'm happy about is that I never tried to justify the action with excuses. It was wrong then, it's still wrong and I'm ashamed the team did it. There is no justification for the Broncos actions and there is no debate as to why they did it. It gave them a competitive edge on the field. Period.

8. As stated, people calling for forfeitures, etc. are way off base. A rule was broken (a no video taping rule) - I'd call it neither a major one nor a minor one. I don't think it even compares to the secretive systematic circumvention of the salary cap by the Broncos or the 49ers; and in which it was PROVEN TO HAVE OCCURRED WHEN THE TEAMS WERE ACTUALLY WINNING THEIR CHAMPIONSHIPS. It deserves punishment. I think a 3rd round pick is about right. And a hefty fine.

More justification. Different time, different commish. Those teams paid their price. If the Broncos or Niners violated the cap this year, I think we can all agree Goodall would lay down a very, very large hammer. There is no question in my mind those teams would lose multiple first round picks for their actions. Goodall can't control what happened in the past. What he's shown, is that he will not take someone breaking his rules lightly. Players who do are gone for a long length of time. Teams that do have to be treated in the same way. (How many games did Ray Lewis get suspended for after his Super Bowl after party? That would be NONE. He was fined 250k. Should Pac-Man and Henry be upset that they were suspended for a conduct violation when a guy who was involved in a homicide got none? Again, different time, different commish.)

9. Belichick is not a nice man. He'll do everything he can to win. He won't make any friends doing it, and he'd just as soon as steal $10 buck from his mom's wallet if it guaranteed him an extra first down the next Sunday. But what he does is win games - by hook or by crook, and by most of the very same hook or by crook methods used by every coach. Every great coach does it. Guys like Jimmy Johnson, Bill Parcells, George Allen -- they all did it. As an example, if you think someone like Mangini is beyond slipping Reche Caldwell a few thousand bucks for tips on the Pats' gameplan, you are sadly mistaken. I find that unseemly too (and I am sure Belichick does it too), but perhaps not a technical rule violation. These guys are getting paid several millions of dollars to win football games. They're going to do it.

Yet more justification. There is none. He cheated. He disregarded a direct memo for the league office. He got caught. I don't care if Mangini, Johnson, Parcells or Allen did what they did. (To my knowledge none of them were hit with a league memo asking them to stop whatever it was they were doing) Belichick probably paid Tim Dwight the same amount of dough to dish on the Jets the same week BTW. It's irrelevant to the discussion because we don't know that money was exchanged and until we do there is no proof a league rule was broken.

10. Now, can we talk about the Chargers game? I have no idea on how the Pats are going to win that one without being able to use a video camera. I guess a couple of guys with binoculars sitting next to the Chargers' guys with binoculars will have to suffice.

I feel for you man. It must be horrible to be a Pats fan. All the titles and all just have to suck. And God forbid anyone talks about a major rules violation that your favorite team was caught doing. Let's just sweep it under the rug and move on. It's so not a big deal that Belichick defied the league to do it. (I'm sorry, I forgot, he was just showing his disdane for a stupid rule, my bad.)

My advice? Deal with it. It's going to be a story for awhile and it isn't going away. You as a fan didn't make that choice and don't need to try to defend them for doing it. They made a mistake and if it wasn't a mistake and it wasn't cheating, they'll explain it all away to Goodall and show him how they didn't defy his orders. Then it's all cleared up and we move on. If they can't do that, they are cheaters. Cheaters that were caught. If they didn't want to deal with the consequences, they shouldn't have done it.

Stop justifying what they did. Stop pretending everyone saying they are cheats are wrong. (we aren't, they did what they did). Just say "we were wrong, we got caught, we have to pay the price, I'm still a fan" That's it.i'm good with it. They have a talented team, stealing signs of not. But they got caught and they can deal with the PR fallout for it. Life will go on.

FWIW, I think a first round pick should be taken away and given to the Jets. Harsh? Hell yeah. Very harsh. That's the price you pay for openly snubbing your nose at the rules. This was a calculated decision by an organization. That cannot go without severe punishment unless Goodall wants to start going easier on the players. Don't worry, I'm not the commish, they won't lose a 1rst. Likely a 3/5/7 and then move on would be my guess.

I appreciate the vigor with which you responded to my post. Let me say a few mean things first. You really have no clue about proportionality in punishment. Second, you can't read. I think I must have admitted at least 3 times in my post that the Pats broke the rule and cheated, and yet you claim I didn't and I am just making excuses. I was making a justification for the level of punishment, not that there should be no punishment. You should take the stick out of your you know what.

Now for some nice things. I have rethought my position. I still believe and know that the video taping was the rule that was broken, not sign stealing . . . BUT I have now come to realize that the advantage was greater than I thought. I only focused on the current game being played. I believe the real advantage gained was for the next game, something that the use of video really made possible. It also looks bad (which I said originally) for the league. Originally, I thought a 3rd rounder and big fine. In all honesty, before hearing the verdict, I would have upped the punishment to second rounder, $500k, and a one-game suspension for Belichick. I would have come pretty close. The 32nd overall pick next year is close to a second rounder.

And I am disappointed. It's hard to argue there's not some taint to the Pats' more recent victories. Not 2001 though. That was too early for the video library to take effect. Anyways, what the hell can you do about it now? I think all you can accept is that your team won 2 SBs but kind of did it like Lance Burkhart (Laird Hamilton) in North Shore (1987) [vague 80s movie reference].

[sabotai]

And now, the other side.

http://www.chicagosportsreview.com/inthemeantime/contentview.asp?c=200810

(One of the only reasons I'm posting this is cuz.. I thought New Englanders hated New York. This guy.. just.. wow)

"Let's put this on the table right now. Eric Mangini is a straight punk. Don't get me wrong, he's smart - but he's a straight punk. Now, why would I say this about a guy who's guested on the Sopranos? Cause the Sopranos ain't shit either, that's why."


Ok, maybe I'm missing something. Is this an actual sports news site/publication? And this guy is supposed to be an actual, professional writer?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

It seems like this won't hurt the Pats so much since they got two first rounders?
And apparently Clayton at ESPN thinks so as well

"Here's the problem with Goodell's decision. Whether by design or not, the Patriots had themselves covered for such a penalty because they are so good at what they do. They acquired the 49ers' first-round pick in a trade that enabled the 49ers to select Joe Staley. They have an additional third-round pick from the Raiders in a trade. They have enough draft choices to survive the loss of one first-round choice. "

NFL Penalty for Belichick,Pats far too light.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?id=3018407

Clayton's a moron on that one. A first round pick is a first round pick. So what if they got an extra one. They got that for giving up something this year -- a first round pick, dumb ass. So, what does he want, 2 first round picks? And if the Pats had happened to have 3 first rounders, then the punishment should be 3 first rounders, and so on? The guy makes no sense on that one.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

For those of you wondering what was actually going on, I think a part of BB's second apology puts it into perspective:

"As the Commissioner acknowledged, our use of sideline video had no impact on the outcome of last week's game. We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress."

It's clear the video is used for future games. Like the player DNA library already discussed. Let me say a couple of things on this.

First, wow. Talk about an in-depth approach to coaching. Meticulous. I'm sorry, but a guy like Herm Edwards ain't in the same zip code.

Second, you're not allowed to do it if you're using your own video to do it.

Third, while obviously the Pats' players benefitted, I don't believe they had a clue it was going on. That would be one conspiracy over quicker than you can say Ty Law just signed with another team.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

And now my last word on this, as I will prepare to actually start watching football again.

I still am searching for the answer to why the Pats did it in open view after being warned. It's still hard to fathom. I mean, BB is not dumb. But this appears to be nothing but dumb. I've thought arrogance, but I really think BB only cares about winning games, period. I'm open to suggestions. Here's the best I could come up with.

BB simply calculated that the penalty for getting caught was outweighed by the benefit received for video taping (and in opposing stadiums, you just wouldn't be able to do a good job of it without having the guy doing the video from field level. I don't think he ever thought the penalty would be a 1st rounder and $500k of his own coin. He might have rethought it, knowing the punishment would be so steep (especially with the arrival of Goodell after Tags). I don't think he believed it would raise such a big stink if caught. Maybe a little blip -- couple lines in a few newspapers. Nothing to worry about.

A classic miscalculation.

[TroyF]

please. You said they made a mistake and then spent point after point justifying or making excuses for it. When it comes to the punishment phase, it's VERY SIMPLE. Goodall sent out a memo saying don't do it and they did.

What happens if you openly defy your boss? My guess is you won't have a job tomorrow. (I know I wouldn't) From the moment When they chose to defy the commish's explicit warnings, that pretty much ends the debate on punishment. It can be as stiff as the commish wants it and be ok.

As far as my post, I went point by point and voiced my problems with your points. If you have an issue with any of those, let's hear it and tell me why I'm wrong. If not, saying "You are an idiot and you hate the Pats" is just a way to avoid challenging the true discussion at hand. I didn't slam the Pats or make generalizations. I did read your points and responded to them in kind. If you don't want to have a discussion, don't write a tome and not allow it to be challenged.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

One more. You thought the handshake at mid-field last season was the most anticipated moment. Just wait until December 16. That game is going to be one Battle Royal. Holy sh$t. Grab the popcorn. And then what will happen after the game. Mangini might want to wear a flak jacket.

[TroyF]

For those of you wondering what was actually going on, I think a part of BB's second apology puts it into perspective:

"As the Commissioner acknowledged, our use of sideline video had no impact on the outcome of last week's game. We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress."

It's clear the video is used for future games. Like the player DNA library already discussed. Let me say a couple of things on this.

First, wow. Talk about an in-depth approach to coaching. Meticulous. I'm sorry, but a guy like Herm Edwards ain't in the same zip code.

Second, you're not allowed to do it if you're using your own video to do it.

Third, while obviously the Pats' players benefitted, I don't believe they had a clue it was going on. That would be one conspiracy over quicker than you can say Ty Law just signed with another team.

Help me here. Tell me how it's making a player DNA library when you are video taping the coach calling the defensive signals. If this were a case of the Patriots shooting the entire sideline and not focusing on the coaching staff before every play, I can buy it. When the video is pointed right at the defensive coach calling out the signals, it's doing that for a purpose. Maybe I'm just missing something. . .

[korme]

Late to the party:

Goodell drops the hammer!

[Vinatieri for Prez]

please. You said they made a mistake and then spent point after point justifying or making excuses for it. When it comes to the punishment phase, it's VERY SIMPLE. Goodall sent out a memo saying don't do it and they did. When it comes to the punishment phase, it's VERY SIMPLE. Goodall sent out a memo saying don't do it and they did.

What happens if you openly defy your boss? My guess is you won't have a job tomorrow. (I know I wouldn't) From the moment When they chose to defy the commish's explicit warnings, that pretty much ends the debate on punishment. It can be as stiff as the commish wants it and be ok.

As far as my post, I went point by point and voiced my problems with your points. If you have an issue with any of those, let's hear it and tell me why I'm wrong. If not, saying "You are an idiot and you hate the Pats" is just a way to avoid challenging the true discussion at hand. I didn't slam the Pats or make generalizations. I did read your points and responded to them in kind. If you don't want to have a discussion, don't write a tome and not allow it to be challenged.

Are you actually reading my posts? Because I'm thinking you can't be. I never called you an idiot or told you that you hated the Pats. I simply can't respond in like kind - that was way too long of a post. But it's clear you simply don't understand the concept of proportionality. So, I will do my best to explain it briefly on one point you just raised. It should hold true for all of your points.

Troy quote: "when it comes to the punishment phase, IT'S VERY SIMPLE. Goodall sent out a memo saying don't do it and they did."

Your quote actually doesn't speak to punishment at all. It only speaks to determination of the rule breaking, and that's it. When deciding on punishment, you look at culpability, prior offenses and punishments, custom and practice. You didn't address these issues at all. I did. I put forth an argument as to what the punishment should be (it's called mitigation, not excuses) - I already agreed that the rule was broken. You still didn't address it the second time around even though I raised the issue. The best you could come up with was that the penalty should be whatever the commish says. While this is technically true, your comment adds nothing to the discussion on what a just punishment should be.

And you wonder why other people call you a Pats' hater? For some, that's an inescapable conclusion from your lengthy post that said the same thing over and over again but never really address the main point of my entire "tome."

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Help me here. Tell me how it's making a player DNA library when you are video taping the coach calling the defensive signals. If this were a case of the Patriots shooting the entire sideline and not focusing on the coaching staff before every play, I can buy it. When the video is pointed right at the defensive coach calling out the signals, it's doing that for a purpose. Maybe I'm just missing something. . .

Who's saying playcalling signals wouldn't be part of the DNA library? I don't think I ever said they weren't videotaping the signals.

[st.cronin]

VFP, you just have to accept that Troy loses his mind when it comes to the Pats. We all have our flaws.

[stevew]

Looking back on it, man, I still can't believe they only took a 3rd from the Broncos and 9ers back in the day for all of their cap shenanigans. I mean, shit, they took 5 first rounders from Minnesota for that kind of impropriety in the NBA.

Hopefully they pass a new rule to allow defenders to have a mic in their helmet next year.

[Yossarian]

There must be something in the water.

McLaren have been stripped of their points in the 2007 Formula One constructors' championship after the outcome of the "spygate" row.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/6991147.stm

Oh, and this is how you enact a punishment.

The team were also fined a record $100m

[stevew]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0EU1O-hGxgg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0EU1O-hGxgg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Bengals fan working here....

[Deattribution]

That video is great.

[k0ruptr]

Lmao , might be my new favorite song.

[Northwood_DK]

There must be something in the water.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/6991147.stm

Oh, and this is how you enact a punishment.

And it gets even worse. Spying in women’s soccer is just sad…

But I love this.

'The next day there were people behind a glass wall at our hotel as we were making preparations,' Nielsen said.

This is old-school spying.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=462630&cc=5901

[wade moore]

Clayton's a moron on that one. A first round pick is a first round pick. So what if they got an extra one. They got that for giving up something this year -- a first round pick, dumb ass. So, what does he want, 2 first round picks? And if the Pats had happened to have 3 first rounders, then the punishment should be 3 first rounders, and so on? The guy makes no sense on that one.

Agreed. Asinine to even bring this up. The punishment is a 1st round pick, not eliminating all 1st rounders this season.

Edit: And a 1st rounder hurts, no matter how many other 1sts you have. In essence, they lose whatever they traded to get the extra 1st (i think a 2007 1st?)

[Thomkal]

Well I'm glad the Commisioner went tough on the Patriots, but I think the penalty should have been a 1st rounder regardless of whether they made the playoffs or not. And the 1st rounder taken from them should have been which ever was the higher pick at the end of the season, rather than taking just what will likely be a late 1st rounder away than a potential Top Ten pick with the Niners pick they have. Actually has the Commish said it will be their own pick they lose rather than the 49ers? And it definitely should be a second rounder should they not make the playoffs.

And I'm thinking the Patriots ownership is going to pay Belichick's fine if they can get away with that.

[Raiders Army]

Tuck rule.

[Noop]

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n23/ufdb/cheatiesne9-1.jpg

[Noop]

That video was great.

[Fidatelo]

I like the punishment, I like the fact that they personally hit Belichick pretty hard because that is really the only way to make a coach think twice. However, I think they should have suspended him without pay for the length it would have taken to get to that 500k, rather than just the straight fine.

Otherwise the penalty seemed pretty appropriate and now hopefully we can go back to just watching football again.

[Fidatelo]

Dola

In regards to the helmets with receivers, why can't teams put receivers in as many helmets as they want?

[Atocep]

BB simply calculated that the penalty for getting caught was outweighed by the benefit received for video taping (and in opposing stadiums, you just wouldn't be able to do a good job of it without having the guy doing the video from field level. I don't think he ever thought the penalty would be a 1st rounder and $500k of his own coin. He might have rethought it, knowing the punishment would be so steep (especially with the arrival of Goodell after Tags). I don't think he believed it would raise such a big stink if caught. Maybe a little blip -- couple lines in a few newspapers. Nothing to worry about.

A classic miscalculation.

I think this is probably correct. Also, looking at how they specifically said his defense was "giving his interpretation of the rule" I'd guess he also thought he could at least make it appear that what he was doing was simply a misunderstanding of the rule and that any punishment would be minimal.

[Mike1409]

I think Belicheck took PR advice from Mark McGwire.

[gstelmack]

When Marty Schottenheimer coached the Cleveland Browns (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=cle) in the late 1980s, he routinely sent a scout to watch the signals opposing teams used to relay messages from coaches to players. When the scout returned, Schottenheimer's staff would watch the game film and match the signals to the plays that followed.

Edwards said the same is true today. It's common for coaches to watch standard game tapes (which include shots from the press box and end zone angles), sideline tapes (which usually wind up on highlight shows and include footage of players and coaches talking on the sidelines) and even the television shows of opposing coaches for tips.

These men then watch the footage with the same scrutiny FBI agents reserve for reviewing a wiretap recording.

"We want to hear what's being said in case you hear an audible or a [defensive] check," Edwards said. "Coaches have a saying: "Anything you say can and will be used against you.'"

August 9.

Look, Patriots were told not to do it, did it anyway, got caught, and are paying a fair price. I'm just tired of the huge public outcry over this particular incident, and why now as opposed to when stories like the above are revealed.

[VPI97]

Look, Patriots were told not to do it, did it anyway, got caught, and are paying a fair price. I'm just tired of the huge public outcry over this particular incident, and why now as opposed to when stories like the above are revealed.
One reason is probably because the commissioner sent out a memo last week to specifically tell teams not to do something...then Belichick goes and does it the very first chance he gets. To me, that's the equivalent of walking up to Goodell and flipping him off right to his face.

[gstelmack]

One reason is probably because the commissioner sent out a memo last week to specifically tell teams not to do something...then Belichick goes and does it the very first chance he gets. To me, that's the equivalent of walking up to Goodell and flipping him off right to his face.

Okay, THAT part I can understand. And FWIW, it's a key reason I'm ticked at the team for this. And glad Goodell sent the message. I think this could be a rough season for the NFL "that's the way it's always been" crowd.

[King of New York]

August 9.

Look, Patriots were told not to do it, did it anyway, got caught, and are paying a fair price. I'm just tired of the huge public outcry over this particular incident, and why now as opposed to when stories like the above are revealed.

The outcry is so big, I think, not so much because it involves the remarkably successful Pats (although that is a part of it), but because it involves Belicheat, I mean Bellycheck.

Belichick, as even most (all?) Pats fans will admit, is not a nice guy. That's fine, up to a point--he is not paid to be a nice guy, he is paid to win. But Belichick also cultivates a certain aura--he likes to project an image of being a football god whose knowledge of the game surpasses that of anyone else.

The taping of signals, after being told to stop it, suggests that the self-annointed football god is more human than he would have us mere mortals believe. That is why so many people are so into this story, I think.

[TroyF]

1) I addressed the punishment phase. Quite clearly. I haven't lost my mind at all with blind hatred of the Patriots. I was not someone who said they should be stripped of multiple first round picks. I was not someone who said they should lose a playoff spot (for two years no less). I was not someone who suggested they forfeit the game. I didn't even say Belichick should be suspended, even for a week. I've been quite rational in what I've said should happen. (and I wasn't all that far off from what I said the commish should do. He didn't give the pick to the Jets, but he gave draft pick penalty I suggested) I guess Goodall is irrational and just hates the Pats too, huh?


2) I believe the Broncos or Niners would get 3 to 5 first round picks taken away, massive fines and other punishments if they repeated their actions today. I don't think Goodall messes around at all with punishments. IMHO, the Broncos should have had one draft taken fully away, 2 more first rounders taken away, had a cap on how much they could sign any individual player in FA for and been forced to give whatever money they were under the cap to the league during the length of the punishment.
The third round pick they lost for breaking the rules was an absolute joke and there is no excuse for it. They can't take away the Super Bowl titles but they damned well should have hammered the organization.


3) Anyone who believes Belichick was simply making a DNA of the league and that this is why he ordered the video taping is a 100% nut job IMHO. He focused the camera on the coach to steal the signals to gain an advantage for the game at hand. Not for FA the following year.

4) I understand all teams try to steal signals. But all teams don't use a video camera to do it and all teams certainly don't do it when the commish has explicitly told them not to do so. if the commish sends a letter to all teams tomorrow telling teams that anyone who tries to steal signals in anyway will be severely punished, any team continuing the practice gets what they deserve if they decide to ignore the order. I don't care if every single team is doing it. The one that gets caught needs to STFU and deal with it. (and to the Patriots credit, outside of Beli trying to say he didn't do it for a competitive advantage (which I think is pure BS), they have done that. Good for them. We move on and it's over. (as this irrational Patriots hater said in his last post)

[MikeVic]

What did the Broncos do again?

[Atocep]

I think Belicheck took PR advice from Mark McGwire.

No kidding. He said he'd comment more on it after the commish's ruling and his comments amounted to "thats in the past".

I'm wondering if he thought his explaination would be ok with the commish and they'd avoid punishment, and thus he'd be able to comment more on it.

Its just really odd that he said he'd comment more on it, held a press conference, and then didn't want to talk about it at all.

[stevew]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28969-2004Sep17.html

[rkmsuf]

No kidding. He said he'd comment more on it after the commish's ruling and his comments amounted to "thats in the past".

I'm wondering if he thought his explaination would be ok with the commish and they'd avoid punishment, and thus he'd be able to comment more on it.

Its just really odd that he said he'd comment more on it, held a press conference, and then didn't want to talk about it at all.


you haven't seem many belichick press conferences then

part of the reason the national media is really enjoying this story and calling the penalty light.

[molson]

No kidding. He said he'd comment more on it after the commish's ruling and his comments amounted to "thats in the past".



Did you miss the statement where he apologised and took full responsibility?

[watravaler]

Did you miss the statement where he apologised and took full responsibility?

A statement that some PR hack wrote?

[Atocep]

Did you miss the statement where he apologised and took full responsibility?


As the commissioner acknowledged, our use of sideline video had no impact on the outcome of last week's game. We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress.
Part of my job as head coach is to ensure that our football operations are conducted in compliance of the league rules and all accepted interpretations of them. My interpretation of a rule in the Constitution and Bylaws was incorrect.


Yes, he seemed really sorry for it....

[molson]

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=30477&highlight=broncos+salary+cap

Should give you a feel for the relative levels of moral outrage here - but of course no one here is giving it to the Pats because they're the Pats :D

Wow, 4 posts.

[molson]

A statement that some PR hack wrote?

That's more than we got from McGuire, and that was the comparison made.

[TroyF]

Wow, 4 posts.

I never saw the posts. I have no idea what was going on around here at teh time of it. It couls have easily slipped through the cracks at FOFC. The other thing was that this was an issue that happened well after the fact. In the case of the Pats, they were caught doing it this week. If a story came out that in 2001, they stole some Rams signals with video tape, it'd probably get the same ammount of attention the Broncos and Niners did.

If it came out tomorrow that the Broncos skirted NFL salary cap rules to sign Daniel Graham and Travis Henry, I'm fairly certain it would erupt into a 10 page threat and people would blow sky high over it. (and I'd be one of those holding the pitchfork)

[MalcPow]

If it came out tomorrow that the Broncos skirted NFL salary cap rules to sign Daniel Graham and Travis Henry, I'm fairly certain it would erupt into a 10 page threat and people would blow sky high over it. (and I'd be one of those holding the pitchfork)

You can't be serious there, there's no way that raises anything like this. At the risk of putting a toe into the 'Pats v. Everyone' drama, this controversy really is largely about the Pats being the Pats. Which isn't to say it has anything to do with obnoxious fans, Boston, the greater Northeast, or people that enjoy sailing, but everything to do with a dominant team, with arguably the league's highest profile player and coach, the odds on favorite to the win the Super Bowl, and coming off a win where they destroyed a playoff team on the road. This is a scandal because it takes down the champ, just like the Lance Armstrong allegations and the Sosa and McGwire stuff. Nobody gives a flip about what the Broncos do to sign Daniel Graham, but the Pats are top dogs, and people are lining up to take them down a notch.

Of course, odds are, they wipe the floor with people from here on out and maybe this motivates them even more than they already were. In that case, it's a pretty short-lived takedown and they get the last laugh.

[rkmsuf]

Can't wait for the next Belichick/Mangini handshake at midfield.

If it ever happens.

[Kodos]

We all know that Belichick doesn't like to shake hands after a defeat.

[rkmsuf]

We all know that Belichick doesn't like to shake hands after a defeat.

I wouldn't call Mangini a winner here. He better hope those pictures of him dressed up as little bo peep aren't released by Bill.

[Kodos]

He cost his rival a 1st rounder (most likely) and $750,000. That's a win, baby!

[rkmsuf]

He cost his rival a 1st rounder (most likely) and $750,000. That's a win, baby!

Wait for the revenge in whatever form it takes. Then we'll check the scoreboard.

A 127-3 Pats victory in Dec and details of Mangini frequenting the NYC booths would make it a close game.

[sabotai]

This is a scandal because it takes down the champ

How does this take down the Colts? ;)

[Kodos]

F'n Elitist Pats fans. They think they're the champs. Crown 'em, I guess.

[Young Drachma]

THE PATRIOTS WERE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE!

[ISiddiqui]

And now it all comes full circle ;)

[Galaril]

Wait for the revenge in whatever form it takes. Then we'll check the scoreboard.

A 127-3 Pats victory in Dec and details of Mangini frequenting the NYC booths would make it a close game.


No kidding. I have no doubt Belichick will be going into the the no huddle even though they are up by 7 TDs when they meet in Dec. to run up the score on the Jets and I can't say I would blame they for doing it either.

[TroyF]

You can't be serious there, there's no way that raises anything like this. At the risk of putting a toe into the 'Pats v. Everyone' drama, this controversy really is largely about the Pats being the Pats. Which isn't to say it has anything to do with obnoxious fans, Boston, the greater Northeast, or people that enjoy sailing, but everything to do with a dominant team, with arguably the league's highest profile player and coach, the odds on favorite to the win the Super Bowl, and coming off a win where they destroyed a playoff team on the road. This is a scandal because it takes down the champ, just like the Lance Armstrong allegations and the Sosa and McGwire stuff. Nobody gives a flip about what the Broncos do to sign Daniel Graham, but the Pats are top dogs, and people are lining up to take them down a notch.

Of course, odds are, they wipe the floor with people from here on out and maybe this motivates them even more than they already were. In that case, it's a pretty short-lived takedown and they get the last laugh.

I'm dead serious here. Yeah, the Pats have some haters. They have irrational people ripping on em. That isn't fair. (of course, this irrational Pats hater wrote that above too, but nobody bothers to read it)

But take a high profile team/coach and have a PROVEN allegation of cheating? Hell, there is no way it doesn't erupt. If it's the Colts/Broncos/Jets/Giants/Cowboys/Eagles/Bears/Chargers/Steelers/Saints or even a Falcons/Lions thing, it's going to get blown up. The Patriots fans acting as though their team is the only one persucuted need to grow up. This is a story no matter who it is. It's MORE of a story because it's the Patriots, but not a bunch more.

After the punishment of the Patriots, no other team will be stupid enough to ignore a league memo, so we probably won't have the chance to find out for awhile.

[jeff061]

After the punishment of the Patriots, no other team will be stupid enough to ignore a league memo, so we probably won't have the chance to find out for awhile.
Doubt that. They'll just be more careful. The only reason Belichick will stop taping the opposing sideline is because Kraft probably put him on a short leash. I bet the guy almost wants to do it more now, just out of spite.

[TroyF]

Doubt that. They'll just be more careful. The only reason Belichick will stop taping the opposing sideline is because Kraft probably put him on a short leash. I bet the guy almost wants to do it more now, just out of spite.

Teams will still "cheat" in trying to steal signs. They won't let one of their cameraman get within fifty feet of an opposing teams sideline. Teams aren't going to risk a first round pick to send a guy out there video taping.

The ones that do? I hope they get caught and them and their fans deal with it. Goodall has shown he will not tolerate inappropriate conduct by players or teams. The ones who choose to go against him, no matter how careful they are, are playing with fire.

[stevew]

We all need to calm down about the Patriots* and concentrate more on how awesome Adrian Petersen is going to be this year.

[Greyroofoo]

I have w/ great reluctance declared that NCAA is the superior sport to the NFL. At least the NCAA will dish out punishments. The NFL will only place a slap on the fist like a bunch of fucking dancers

[Atocep]

I have w/ great reluctance declared that NCAA is the superior sport to the NFL. At least the NCAA will dish out punishments. The NFL will only place a slap on the fist like a bunch of fucking dancers

Reggie Bush doesn't think so.

[Greyroofoo]

I can't w/ greact reluctance follow My Colts this year. I have follow Michigan or Toledo this year. I can't follow my Colts until the NFL agreess to purge out every frickcken cheaten fuckin element out.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I have w/ great reluctance declared that NCAA is the superior sport to the NFL. At least the NCAA will dish out punishments. The NFL will only place a slap on the fist like a bunch of fucking dancers

Yes, I agree that an organization that makes billions of dollars on the backs of players but spends time making sure Jimmy doesn't get an extra $100 in his paycheck for not doing anything (even though the kid has never seen a hundred dollar bill in his life) is quite the morally superior entity.

And it is also clear that no sign stealing/deciphering occurs in the NCAA, nor have players participated as a walk-on during spring camp, only to return to the rival college with information come the fall. The NFL dished out a punishment here. The NCAA never even would have given a punishment. Plus, I don't believe they even have this rule in the NCAA, so in fact video taping of signals most likely is quite legal in the NCAA.

Did somebody actually stand up for the NCAA in this thread? Utterly shocking.

[TroyF]

Yes, I agree that an organization that makes billions of dollars on the backs of players but spends time making sure Jimmy doesn't get an extra $100 in his paycheck for not doing anything (even though the kid has never seen a hundred dollar bill in his life) is quite the morally superior entity.

And it is also clear that no sign stealing/deciphering occurs in the NCAA, nor have players participated as a walk-on during spring camp, only to return to the rival college with information come the fall. The NFL dished out a punishment here. The NCAA never even would have given a punishment. Plus, I don't believe they even have this rule in the NCAA, so in fact video taping of signals most likely is quite legal in the NCAA.

Did somebody actually stand up for the NCAA in this thread? Utterly shocking.

I'm so hoping that was sarcasm. I didn't respond because of it. The corruptness of the NCAA makes the NFL look like a bunch of boy scouts.

[SirFozzie]

I have w/ great reluctance declared that NCAA is the superior sport to the NFL. At least the NCAA will dish out punishments. The NFL will only place a slap on the fist like a bunch of fucking dancers

Considering the amount of shit that folks in the SEC (YOUR area) get away with, this may be the biggest PKB in the history of FOFC.

[Radii]

I have w/ great reluctance declared that NCAA is the superior sport to the NFL. At least the NCAA will dish out punishments. The NFL will only place a slap on the fist like a bunch of fucking dancers


And the Pats fans and Pats haters all of a sudden become united against a common enemy. This is possibly the single most comically incorrect statement I've ever read on this board.

[CU Tiger]

This story may not be over

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3022773


But what the hell. They may be punished further if they find out the team copied the tapes?
I'm assuming this is a violation of the copyright rule?
As I recall any unauthorized images, accounts or descriptions of this game...
What about they may be fined for describing how their day at the office went to their family?

[Deattribution]

This story may not be over

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3022773


But what the hell. They may be punished further if they find out the team copied the tapes?
I'm assuming this is a violation of the copyright rule?
As I recall any unauthorized images, accounts or descriptions of this game...
What about they may be fined for describing how their day at the office went to their family?

He doesn't want them to make copies because then it defeats the purpose of taking the tapes away from them in the first place. The team would still have an advantage if they continued to have a library of tapes with team's signals, it's an intelligent move by Goodell since it was the only other concern I had with the matter.

[ISiddiqui]

It seems to me that teams are kind of still operating under the assumption Tags is in the head chair. Goodell is far more of a hard ass on these things and won't just simply wink and nod.

[Crapshoot]

Yes, I agree that an organization that makes billions of dollars on the backs of players but spends time making sure Jimmy doesn't get an extra $100 in his paycheck for not doing anything (even though the kid has never seen a hundred dollar bill in his life) is quite the morally superior entity.

And it is also clear that no sign stealing/deciphering occurs in the NCAA, nor have players participated as a walk-on during spring camp, only to return to the rival college with information come the fall. The NFL dished out a punishment here. The NCAA never even would have given a punishment. Plus, I don't believe they even have this rule in the NCAA, so in fact video taping of signals most likely is quite legal in the NCAA.

Did somebody actually stand up for the NCAA in this thread? Utterly shocking.

Seriously - the NCAA is the biggest piece of shit around, and a despicable institution.

[Kodos]

Goodell kicks ass. I love him. Love him. LOVE HIM.

[SirFozzie]

Interesting. I didn't see this myself on the pregame, but wow, it's interesting to see what all teams do. (yes, I know it doesn't change anything, but at least it clarifies the amount of cheating that's going on)..

If anybody watched "FOX NFL SUNDAY" aka the pregame show, they would finally hear the opinions voiced that what the Pats did was the norm not the exception.

Jimmy Johnson said a bunch of things that I didn't expect. I thought he would say the whole "everybody does it so it's not big deal" thing, but I wasn't expecting the rest.

Jimmy said that he did everything that the Pats did when he coached both in college and in the NFL. Then Barry Switzer said that he did everything also except for a couple years with the Cowboys.

I thought it was over until Jimmy said that he had an intern whose only job was to go to the opposing teams' box after the game and look through the trash for gameplans, plays, etc. to use in the future.

[Kodos]

Jimmy Johnson was a cheater? SHOCKING!

[molson]

NFL coaches are nutty. They wouldn't have reached their level of success if they weren't.

[MikeVic]

What better nutty or smooth NFL coach

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Doesn't surprise me. It doesn't make it right 'cause the rule was broken, but it hopefully should dampen the high and mighty road taken by some in terms of the level of punishment that should have been meted out for the infraction. But probably not.

[DaddyTorgo]

Interesting. I didn't see this myself on the pregame, but wow, it's interesting to see what all teams do. (yes, I know it doesn't change anything, but at least it clarifies the amount of cheating that's going on)..

If anybody watched "FOX NFL SUNDAY" aka the pregame show, they would finally hear the opinions voiced that what the Pats did was the norm not the exception.

Jimmy Johnson said a bunch of things that I didn't expect. I thought he would say the whole "everybody does it so it's not big deal" thing, but I wasn't expecting the rest.

Jimmy said that he did everything that the Pats did when he coached both in college and in the NFL. Then Barry Switzer said that he did everything also except for a couple years with the Cowboys.

I thought it was over until Jimmy said that he had an intern whose only job was to go to the opposing teams' box after the game and look through the trash for gameplans, plays, etc. to use in the future.

good. I'm glad. Now maybe all the Pats-haters can get off their high-horses and realize that their teams do/did it too.

[Cringer]

Interesting. I didn't see this myself on the pregame, but wow, it's interesting to see what all teams do. (yes, I know it doesn't change anything, but at least it clarifies the amount of cheating that's going on)..

If anybody watched "FOX NFL SUNDAY" aka the pregame show, they would finally hear the opinions voiced that what the Pats did was the norm not the exception.

Jimmy Johnson said a bunch of things that I didn't expect. I thought he would say the whole "everybody does it so it's not big deal" thing, but I wasn't expecting the rest.

Jimmy said that he did everything that the Pats did when he coached both in college and in the NFL. Then Barry Switzer said that he did everything also except for a couple years with the Cowboys.

I thought it was over until Jimmy said that he had an intern whose only job was to go to the opposing teams' box after the game and look through the trash for gameplans, plays, etc. to use in the future.

Sad that it took until Sunday for people to hear this point of view. Everyone should have NFL Radio on Sirius. They have 1/2 of the head coaches in the league on every week, and hosted by former players, coaches, and GMs. The former guys are the ones who give you the most info of course. It was a good week of talk about the whole thing.

I think the team got the right punishment, and that the cheating was not the end of the world at all, but just an extension of the norm.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I think the team got the right punishment, and that the cheating was not the end of the world at all, but just an extension of the norm.

You hit it bang on Cringer boy.

[Arles]

Interesting. I didn't see this myself on the pregame, but wow, it's interesting to see what all teams do. (yes, I know it doesn't change anything, but at least it clarifies the amount of cheating that's going on)..
...
Jimmy Johnson said a bunch of things that I didn't expect. I thought he would say the whole "everybody does it so it's not big deal" thing, but I wasn't expecting the rest.

Jimmy said that he did everything that the Pats did when he coached both in college and in the NFL. Then Barry Switzer said that he did everything also except for a couple years with the Cowboys.
So, essentially, you are saying that because New England is no worse than the mid-90s Cowboys, everyone should lay off the cheating comments. Makes sense... :D

In all seriousness, I think most teams employ some kind of technique to get signs. The Pats have just tried to push the envelop a bit and got caught.

[EagleFan]

Pats fans sound a lot like someone who just got caught speeding...

(whine)"But everyone does it..."(/whine)


I think that coach should be bitch slapped just for his response alone. Be a freaking man and own up to it, don't try to act like a little 5 year old and say "but I didn't know it was wrong".

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Pats fans sound a lot like someone who just got caught speeding...

(whine)"But everyone does it..."(/whine)


Actually, that's not at all what the Pats' fans here were saying with respect to the actual rule breaking. Certainly, an issue with respect to the level of punishment, especially when you have talking head and former players on the losing end calling for forfeiture of SBs and banishment from playoffs. So, in that context, it is an appropriate way to respond.

[Grammaticus]

Honestly, I think they are more concerned with the asterik.

[gstelmack]

I think that coach should be bitch slapped just for his response alone. Be a freaking man and own up to it, don't try to act like a little 5 year old and say "but I didn't know it was wrong".

If you listened to Goodell, that was pretty much exactly why he gave the punishment he gave. He thought Bellichick's response (interpretation of the constitution and bylaws) was ridiculous and nailed him for it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Actually, that's not at all what the Pats' fans here were saying with respect to the actual rule breaking. Certainly, an issue with respect to the level of punishment, especially when you have talking head and former players on the losing end calling for forfeiture of SBs and banishment from playoffs. So, in that context, it is an appropriate way to respond.

".

[Kodos]

According to the ESPN poll, over 60% of people polled believe the penalty was too lenient.

[mckerney]

According to the ESPN poll, over 60% of people polled believe the penalty was too lenient.

How many after reading this?

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/09/17/tax-profs-bill-belichick-can-deduct-his-500000-fine/

September 17, 2007, 5:04 pm
Tax Profs: Bill Belichick Can Deduct His $500,000 Fine
Posted by Amir Efrati

bill belichick The TaxProf blog, which gets its second salute from the Law Blog today, tackled an interesting question: Whether Bill Belichick (pictured), head coach of the New England Patriots, can deduct the $500,000 fine — the biggest ever for an NFL coach — he received after violating league rules by videotaping defensive signals from New York Jets coaches in the Pats’ regular-season opener earlier this month. (The team was fined $250,000.) The answer: Yes.

The blog excerpted an email discussion by 12 tax law professors who, after 10,000 words on the matter, including testy exchanges over the interpretation of some old tax cases, mostly agreed that the fine is deductible under section 162 of the internal revenue code, “trade or business expenses.”

Wrote Myron Grauer of Capital University Law School: “Because, unfortunately, in this day and age, it probably is ‘ordinary’ for coaches and players in professional sports to cheat and, if caught, to be fined by the league, the fine levied on the Patriots’ coach can be viewed as an ordinary and necessary business expense….”

After some profs raised questions about whether being fined for “cheating” was an ordinary expense, Mike McIntyre of Wayne State University slammed the tax law hammer to end the discussion.

“[T]he fine was for violating a rule, not for cheating. The Patriots were not accused of cheating by the Commissioner and were not fined for cheating….No professional football game is played without someone breaking the rules. It is expected that people will break the rules,” McIntyre wrote.

Meanwhile, ESPN has reported that Belichick got a contract extension through at least the 2013 season.

[VPI97]

Honestly, I think they are more concerned with the asterik.

LOL at the New York Post:

http://www.fof-ihof.com/upload/VPI97/nypostcheating3.jpg

[jeff061]

Heh, that is kinda funny :D.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Especially since they still show the Jets as 0-2. Apparently the Jets can't even win a forfeit, even in the minds of their own media. :)

[rkmsuf]

These KFFL entries are funny.
----------------------------------------





Patriots | Ventrone signed to practice squad
Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:15:05 -0700

Mike Reiss, of the Boston Globe, reports the New England Patriots have signed free-agent S Ray Ventrone (Jets) to their practice squad.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jets | T. James works out for team
Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:14:31 -0700

Mike Reiss, of the Boston Globe, reports free-agent DB Tory James (Patriots) recently worked out for the New York Jets.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jets | Hawkins works out for team
Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:12:57 -0700

Mike Reiss, of the Boston Globe, reports free-agent DB Artrell Hawkins (Patriots) recently worked out for the New York Jets.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Patriots | Maxey works out for team
Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:12:27 -0700

Mike Reiss, of the Boston Globe, reports free-agent DB Marcus Maxey (Chiefs) worked out for the New England Patriots Tuesday, Sept. 18.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Patriots | Hodge works out for team
Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:11:51 -0700

Mike Reiss, of the Boston Globe, reports free-agent CB Alphonso Hodge (Jets) worked out for the New England Patriots Tuesday, Sept. 18.

[MikeVic]

This one doesn't belong there:
Patriots | Maxey works out for team
Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:12:27 -0700

Mike Reiss, of the Boston Globe, reports free-agent DB Marcus Maxey (Chiefs) worked out for the New England Patriots Tuesday, Sept. 18.

[TroyF]

Actually, that's not at all what the Pats' fans here were saying with respect to the actual rule breaking. Certainly, an issue with respect to the level of punishment, especially when you have talking head and former players on the losing end calling for forfeiture of SBs and banishment from playoffs. So, in that context, it is an appropriate way to respond.

No, even then, the Patriots and their fans have nothing to bring to the table.

There wasn't a leaguewide memo sent to all teams telling the Cowboys not to look for scraps of playbook paper in the opposing teams coaches box. That memo changes everything in terms of comparing what the Patriots did vs. any other team past or present.

What we have is a no nonsense commish who has shown a willingness to lay the hammer down when someone goes against him. He sent a memo saying DON'T VIDEOTAPE COACHES SIGNALS. The Patriots chose to ignore it. That's the only context that is/was/will be. . . Unless a comparable event in the past happened, there is no context to be gained for Jimmy.

As for the people talking about Super Bowls or playoffs, they were few and far between. (Terrell Davis was the most adament on that topic) Most were questioning how it would tarnish the Super Bowls, not talking about taking them away.

[molson]

Unless a comparable event in the past happened, there is no context to be gained for Jimmy.

As for the people talking about Super Bowls or playoffs, they were few and far between. (Terrell Davis was the most adament on that topic) Most were questioning how it would tarnish the Super Bowls, not talking about taking them away.

Why doesn't Jimmy add context to the tarnishing Super Bowl argument?

He certainly doesn't add context to the issue of whether the Patriots should be punished or not, but for the Billionth time, NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT.

The issue is tarnishing past success. When people are talking about taking away super bowls (including McNabb, Bettis, and Davis), they're not litterally calling for that, they're trying to tarnish the Patriots and in the case of McNabb and Bettis, trying to justify their own failures. The Johnson comments are appropriate in all of those contexts, to the question that has no clear answer - how much of an edge was this?

[Alan T]

I guess the part of this that makes the least sense to me is...


If the cameraman had been in the first row of stands it would have been perfectly legal. If he had been anywhere else in the stadium, it would have been allowed according to the rules.

The rules (and even the memo that went out) are a bit ambiguous for direct meaning, which is what Bellicheck obviously used as his defense. The rules seem to state that its perfectly fine to tape (and everyone else probably does), just you can't benefit from the tape that game.

Considering how powerful cameras are these days, why not just do what every other team likely does and do the exact same video from some place other than the sideline and this whole issue doesn't come up.

I think I believe Bellicheck's statement that he wasn't using the video footage to gain an advantage during -that- game, so why push the envelope here?

I guess I just don't understand what is to gain by taping these signals from the sidelines instead of just doing what everyone else likely does and tape it from somewhere else... I guess just color me puzzled on what he was thinking.

[rkmsuf]

Bellicheck

Is it really that hard to spell his name?

[molson]

The rules (and even the memo that went out) are a bit ambiguous for direct meaning, which is what Bellicheck obviously used as his defense. The rules seem to state that its perfectly fine to tape (and everyone else probably does), just you can't benefit from the tape that game.



The weird part of the rule to me is that it's OK to tape the game from the field (teams HAVE to do this - you can't really have any idea what's going on in the secondary from the TV tape. I still have no idea how regular fans can have specific opinions on how good Cornerbacks and Safetys are because you never see them unless the ball is thrown their way, but that's a story for another thread), but it's only illegal if you focus on the defensive coaches for too long.

[Alan T]

Is it really that hard to spell his name?

I have no idea how his name is spelled. I actually used to get it mixed up with the coach of the Ravens (back when both of them were coordinators). So, guess so. :)

[Kodos]

Is it really that hard to spell his name?

Apparently it is.

[molson]

Is it really that hard to spell his name?

Extremely. Belichick doesn't look right, especially since most people don't pronounce it that way.

[Alan T]

I just spelled it the way I hear it on the radio all the time. I actually don't know how to read. I post on here through a modified speak and spell.

[Kodos]

I poast by Hooked on Fonics.

[Maple Leafs]

If the cameraman had been in the first row of stands it would have been perfectly legal. If he had been anywhere else in the stadium, it would have been allowed according to the rules.

This is not true, at least based on the memo quoted in Easterbrook's column on ESPN.com.

The NFL rule bans teams from filming each other's sidelines. There's no room for interpretation, it's a ban! Here's the NFL policy, from a memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006: "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game." Prohibited.

So basically, videotaping is illegal from anywhere, period, and the Pats knew it. I guess they figured that since they were breaking the rules anyway, they might as well get as close as possible.

[molson]

So basically, videotaping is illegal from anywhere, period, and the Pats knew it. I guess they figured that since they were breaking the rules anyway, they might as well get as close as possible.

I know I've heard coaches referring to extended "game tape" that covers the whole field. There's no way they're making personnel decisions based on watching NFL on FOX, which shows only a very limited part of the field.

Where are they getting that from?

[Maple Leafs]

I know I've heard coaches referring to extended "game tape" that covers the whole field. There's no way they're making personnel decisions based on watching NFL on FOX, which shows only a very limited part of the field.

Where are they getting that from?
I would assume teams can make their own tapes of the action on the field.

What does that have to do with the prohibition of videotaping the sidelines?

[molson]

I would assume teams can make their own tapes of the action on the field.

What does that have to do with the prohibition of videotaping the sidelines?

Ahh, I took your statement "videotaping is illegal from anywhere, period" too litterally.

Though it seems it would be tricky to film the game and not the sidelines.

[Alan T]

This is not true, at least based on the memo quoted in Easterbrook's column on ESPN.com.



So basically, videotaping is illegal from anywhere, period, and the Pats knew it. I guess they figured that since they were breaking the rules anyway, they might as well get as close as possible.


Actually I think your post is making my point. The memo states that video taping of any kind (doesn't have anything to do with signal stealing) is not allowed anywhere they can take advantage of it. The memo as I read it says you could have someone in a blimp taking video footage of the opposing team's signals and its perfectly legal as they can't gain access from it for that game.

Thats why I don't understand why the Pats did this. It seems pretty common that every other team is doing recording, they just are doing it somewhere that is not ruled illegal (ie: that they can't get hold of it during that game). Why not just put the camera somewhere else and do the exact same thing but within the rules?

[Alan T]

I would assume teams can make their own tapes of the action on the field.

What does that have to do with the prohibition of videotaping the sidelines?

I don't think what you posted actually says what the writer's interpretation of it says.

"Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."


It says you can't do any videotaping somewhere that you can access it during that game. So the rule that the Patriots broke wasn't stealing signals or anything to do with that. It was simply having the camera on the sideline.. Which is what my original point was.. Why have that there? WHy not just have it somewhere within the rules to do the same thing? Thats what I don't understand.

[Maple Leafs]

It says you can't do any videotaping somewhere that you can access it during that game.
I believe the point is that you can't take take video of anywhere that the other team's staff has access to. In other words, all the places listed (coach's booth, sidelines, locker room) are places that you can not try to videotape. If it's somewhere that the staff can't be anyways (such as the field during play) then film away.

[TroyF]

Why doesn't Jimmy add context to the tarnishing Super Bowl argument?

He certainly doesn't add context to the issue of whether the Patriots should be punished or not, but for the Billionth time, NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT.

The issue is tarnishing past success. When people are talking about taking away super bowls (including McNabb, Bettis, and Davis), they're not litterally calling for that, they're trying to tarnish the Patriots and in the case of McNabb and Bettis, trying to justify their own failures. The Johnson comments are appropriate in all of those contexts, to the question that has no clear answer - how much of an edge was this?

Ummmm, actually, no. Throughout the thread people have been making those assertions to talk about what the punishment should be. That past cases should show how damning it is and how that should be taken into consideration for the punishment. I'm telling you that's nonsense and is has been disputed to me repeatedly. In fact the quote I had in it stated the words "Certainly, an issue with respect to the level of punishment" in it.

No, it certainly is not an issue with respect to the level of punishment, because this is a new situation with no context to fall back on.

I've lost count of how many times I've said it in this thread. Either people can't read or they continue to believe I have some irrational hatred of the Patriots. But here we go again:

There will be people who will slam the Patriots for this out of bitternes. That's sad. There will be people who say Tom Brady sucks or Belichick can't coach. That's equally sad. It's not fair, but that's the way it is. When you get caught cheating, you bring that on yourself. It doesn't make it right or fair.

Does that clear up my opinion on it? Or should do I have to make it in 40 point bolded font?

In the case of the former players slamming the Patriots, I think they have a right to complain. If the Patriots were doing something that was illegal (in football terms) that gave them ANY KIND OF EDGE, that could have had a difference in the outcome of the game.

They have every right to be pissed off about it. But the idea that you can take away a Super Bowl or ban them from the playoffs is absurd and idiotic. The idea that the Pats are full of scrubs who only win because of the cheating and have no talent is absurd and idiotic.

At the end of the day we don't know how much or how little it helped the Pats. (again, I personally believe it helped them a great deal, which is why Belichick did it knowing he could be caught and why he lied through his teeth with some "interpretation" garbage. If it wasn't that big of a deal, there is no reason to lie about that part of it) But all we have are opinions and all we can do is move forward. The punishment has been handed down and if the Pats comply with everything, it's over.

If they don't, I have a feeling that'll be the last we see of Bill Belichick in the NFL. I don't think Goodall will tolerate another infraction and that if NE doesn't walk a perfect line and follow every rule in the book, that Goodall will really show em what a hammer is. It won't happen. They'll be perfect. They'll win 12-14 games. They'll compete for the title at least for a few more years, maybe longer. This isn't going to change it.

[dime]

honestly, as a sports fan, if you were told this happened and had ONE GUESS as to which nfl franchise did it, who would you choose?

the pats, of course. not because they "win all the time" or are "hated" (huh?) but because they fit the profile perfectly. belichick's insulting response and typically arrogant dismissal of any accountability for the cheating was sadly predictable.

I don't like the pats, not because I give a shit about boston or the colts or the steelers or anyone else...but because the nfl deserves a better "dynasty". the post-game taunting, the wal-mart approach to personnel, the desperate paranoia ("no one respects us!"), etc. are not becoming for a champion franchise. they are tedious and embarrassing.

[SirFozzie]

Finally, our long week-long national nightmare is over.

Nice to see the J-E-T-S allegations attempt to pile on got properly taken care of.


NEW YORK -- The NFL has received and destroyed all materials it requested from the New England Patriots concerning videotaping of opponents' sidelines.

A league statement Thursday said the team was in compliance with a request for tapes and other documents.

"The Patriots have fully cooperated and complied with the requirements of the commissioner's decision," the statement said. "All tapes, documents and other records relating to this matter were turned over to the league office and destroyed, and the Patriots have certified in writing that no copies or other records exist.

"League policies on in-game videotaping and audio communication will continue to be closely monitored and strictly enforced with all 32 teams."

Last week, Patriots coach Bill Belichick was fined $500,000 by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and the team was fined $250,000 for violating a league rule that prohibits clubs from using a video camera on the sidelines for any purpose -- including recording signals relayed to opposing players on the field. New England also must forfeit a first-round draft pick next year if it makes the playoffs or a second- and third-rounder if it doesn't.

A video camera aimed at Jets coaches was confiscated from a Patriots employee during the first quarter of the team's 38-14 win Sept. 9 over New York. Jets coach Eric Mangini has had a cool relationship with Belichick since leaving as Patriots defensive coordinator after the 2005 season.

When asked if the Patriots' defensive players also used microphones or other recording devices in their shoulder pads to pick up Jets audibles, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said: "We have no evidence to support that claim."

[EagleFan]

But they still need to pay for making "our" quarterback puke in the Super Bowl...

[Maple Leafs]

The demand for all tapes and notes wasn't about finding more wrong-doing. It was about making sure that if any new information comes out, the Pats can't say "well you never asked about that".

Now, if Goodell ever finds any more evidence of cheating, he can drop the bomb on the Pats and nobody will be able to complain.

[Surtt]

From Tuesday Morning Quarterback


Fishy, indeed. On Sunday, Sept. 16, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell went on national TV and promised he would get to the bottom of the Patriots' sign-stealing. Four days later, the NFL announced all videotapes and other spying materials compiled by the Patriots had been obtained by the league and destroyed. Goodell, who until then had been very upfront in addressing the Beli-Cheat scandal, didn't go back on television to say what the tapes contained; the commissioner has been in radio silence about the Patriots since the files arrived at the NFL's Park Avenue headquarters. The league acted in a hurry to dispose of damning documents, but has not revealed what was in the tapes and notes, nor said why there was a rush to get rid of them.

The lack of answers leaves several questions hanging out there. Chief among them: Is it possible the Patriots' tapes showed some evidence of New England cheating in a Super Bowl?


There is much more
hxxp://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/070925&sportCat=nfl


Easterbrook echoes what I have been thinking the last week.
I was trying to reserve judgment on this whole thing until we knew how deep the rabbit hole went.

The way Goodell destroyed the evidence screams "cover up" to me.
I can not see any reason to destroy this stuff, unless there was something to hide.

I have lost all respect for Goodell and am very disappointed with the NFL right now.

[SirFozzie]

Give me a fucking break.

The League says "Bad Patriots. No Biscuit (750K in fines, and an unprecedented first round draft pick) ! Turn over all your spying tapes so we can destroy them."

(Patriots turn over tapes, league confirms tapes are as advertised and there were no hidden tapes)

League: and don't do it again! (destroys tapes as promised)

Conspiracy Theorists: OMGWTFBBQ! The league is hiding something!

You know why Shanoff, Easterbrook and others are so pissed about the League saying there's no evidence for the Jets pile on and closing the case on spygate?

Because they had the idea they could be lazy and spin this story for months on end.. After all, the league's already had one tape mysteriously leak out, which fed the controversy.

So this attitude is just disappointment that they won't have multiple future columns already written for them

[SirFozzie]

Dola: Oh, and another reason that the league wanted to destroy the tapes quickly.. they had one tape in their hands for less then a week, and it already had been leaked nationwide via FOX. Any more leaks, and they'd have to release the whole set to avoid trouble

[gstelmack]

I've lost a lot of respect for Easterbrook over the last 2 weeks. This week in particular. He's just ranting now.

[molson]

Give me a fucking break.



No kidding.

Every dynasty has three stages

1. the feel good stage
2. the stage where everyone wants to take them down a notch, often irrationally
3. the downside of the dynasty - everyone celebrates about how much they suck now

The Patriots are at the height of #2. The Colts are still very much in #1, but I guarantee you, if they can win a couple more super bowls, they'll reach #2 as well.

[wade moore]

I'm with the Pats fans on this one.

Some people just love to create drama where there is none.

[st.cronin]

I've lost a lot of respect for Easterbrook over the last 2 weeks. This week in particular. He's just ranting now.

I actually feel completely sympathetic to Easterbrook, not on the details, but on how he is thinking about this. Like Easterbrook, on a regular basis I completely lose my mind about something, and sound like a total lunatic to everybody I talk to about it.

[Atocep]

From Tuesday Morning Quarterback



There is much more
hxxp://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/070925&sportCat=nfl


Easterbrook echoes what I have been thinking the last week.
I was trying to reserve judgment on this whole thing until we knew how deep the rabbit hole went.

The way Goodell destroyed the evidence screams "cover up" to me.
I can not see any reason to destroy this stuff, unless there was something to hide.

I have lost all respect for Goodell and am very disappointed with the NFL right now.


That article is completely irrational and its just making shit up. There's zero proof that it happened, its just random conspiracy theories.

However, no one can be suprised by this. The Pats are going to be dealing with this for quite some time. Part of it is because of their success, part of it is simply because they got caught. You can claim everyone does it, but everyone hasn't been caught. Until more teams are caught doing this type of thing the Pats will be dealing with it.

[MalcPow]

I've lost a lot of respect for Easterbrook over the last 2 weeks. This week in particular. He's just ranting now.

Couldn't agree more, very disappointing set of columns from a guy who I've basically made time to read every week over the last few years. I'm not a Pats fan, but I'm just finding his "perspective" on things is alternating between tediously fake naive and obnoxious.

[molson]

However, no one can be suprised by this. The Pats are going to be dealing with this for quite some time. Part of it is because of their success, part of it is simply because they got caught. You can claim everyone does it, but everyone hasn't been caught. Until more teams are caught doing this type of thing the Pats will be dealing with it.

Yes, and the Pats certainly deserve to deal with it (to some extent). I just (still) don't understand why the Broncos and 49ers can cheat their way to success with salary cap shenanigans (something where the benefits are far more tangible and clear than this case), and no one cares in the least.

[Atocep]

Yes, and the Pats certainly deserve to deal with it (to some extent). I just (still) don't understand why the Broncos and 49ers can cheat their way to success with salary cap shenanigans, and no one cares in the least.

My guess would be the timing of when they got caught and the fact it was salary cap issues. Both the 49ers and Broncos were caught after the fact, while the Pats were actually caught in the act. I think that is a big difference in how much attention the media is going to give it and whether we like it or not the media can shape the perception of things for the average fan.

Also, and I could very well be way out in left field on this, but I think for most fans the salary cap is a very abstract thing and they really can't grasp it affecting games on an individual basis. However, the pats were caught stealing signs, which fans have an easier time understanding the impact of.

100% speculation on my part, but I can't figure it out either.

[wade moore]

My guess would be the timing of when they got caught and the fact it was salary cap issues. Both the 49ers and Broncos were caught after the fact, while the Pats were actually caught in the act. I think that is a big difference in how much attention the media is going to give it and whether we like it or not the media can shape the perception of things for the average fan.

Also, and I could very well be way out in left field on this, but I think for most fans the salary cap is a very abstract thing and they really can't grasp it affecting games on an individual basis. However, the pats were caught stealing signs, which fans have an easier time understanding the impact of.

100% speculation on my part, but I can't figure it out either.
Before reading your post I was going to make the 2nd point that you made. I think for most people they can't wrap their head around the salary cap, let alone what the Broncos did with it. Plus, I think that all got uncovered during a slow part of the off-season?

[sabotai]

Conspiracy Theorists: OMGWTFBBQ! The league is hiding something!

You know, the NFL did just come out with a new rule about cheerleaders. There MUST be some kind of connection between these tapes and the cheerleaders!

[SirFozzie]

You know, the NFL did just come out with a new rule about cheerleaders. There MUST be some kind of connection between these tapes and the cheerleaders!

Either that, or someone at the NFL office saw "The Replacements"

(of course, the two are not mutually inconsistent)

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Easy observation. Easterbrook writes a long article speculating there's more to the Pats cheating. The league says there's no more. So, Easterbrook writes another long article that the league must be "hiding" something to cover his ass for the terrible first article. Instead, he should have just written "I was wrong" and saved what was left of his credibility.

I'm actually surprised he didn't tie all the cheating back when the flaming thumbtacks blitzed. His schtick is so tiresome, I stopped reading his stuff a couple of seasons ago. When he got booted off espn.com for his offensive remarks, I missed him. When he came back to nfl.com, I couldn't believe I actually read his stuff.

[JeeberD]

That's hilarious!

[st.cronin]

I think there is a 10% chance Easterbrook mentions that lawsuit in his next column.

[SirFozzie]

I think there is a 10% chance Easterbrook mentions that lawsuit in his next column.

Really? I think he'll try to spin it as "Things are so bad, two seperate lawsuits have been filed against the Patriots..If I was them, I'd fear discovery..."

Never mind the two lawsuits have been filed by an imprisoned whackaloon and a professional suer of people

[Butter]

You Pats fans sure do have a complex, don't you?