PDA

View Full Version : Sources: Camera confiscated after claims of Pats spying on Jets



Pages : [1] 2

WMR
09-11-2007, 01:13 AM
Sources: Camera confiscated after claims of Pats spying on Jets

NFL security confiscated a video camera and its tape from a New England Patriots employee on the team's sideline during Sunday's game against the Jets in a suspected spying incident, sources said.

The camera and its tape were placed in a sealed box and forwarded to the league office for investigation, the sources said.

"We don't have any comment," an NFL spokesman said Monday.

The Patriots' cameraman was suspected of aiming his camera at the Jets' defensive coaches who were sending signals to their unit on the field, the sources said. The league also is investigating some radio frequency issues that occurred during the game.

The league's competition committee could conduct a conference call about the incident, which violates NFL policy, and ultimately recommend a penalty that could cost the Patriots a future draft pick or picks if it verifies that the team was spying on the Jets.

"It's not their first time," a member of the committee, who did not wish to be identified, said.

In fact, Green Bay Packers president Bob Harlan confirmed a similar incident that occurred when the Patriots played at Lambeau Field last Nov. 19. The same cameraman who was questioned by NFL security on Sunday was also the one whom the Packers removed from the sideline and escorted from the field during their 2006 game, according to Packers security official Doug Collins.

"From what I can remember, he had quite a fit when we took him out," Harlan said. "We had gotten word before the game that they [the Patriots] did this sort of thing, so we were looking for it."

A Jets official declined comment Monday, directing an inquiry to the league office. The Patriots also did not have immediate comment.

Chris Mortensen covers the NFL for ESPN.

www.espn.com

cincinnati chili
09-11-2007, 01:59 AM
I saw this too. I wonder how many draft picks they'll lose. The commish will be in a precarious situation because the Patriots are such a model franchise for the league (and brings in so much revenue).

Caveat Emperor
09-11-2007, 02:38 AM
I saw this too. I wonder how many draft picks they'll lose. The commish will be in a precarious situation because the Patriots are such a model franchise for the league (and brings in so much revenue).

Then again, it might be good for the league if the Patriots come back down to Earth again.

I'm sure the people in Boston feel differently, but I get the real sense that there is a "Patriots-fatigue" among NFL fans. There is only so much ESPN coverage of one team and set of players you can take before you start angling for them to move on. Seven years is an eternity in the NFL spotlight.

RFS62
09-11-2007, 09:31 AM
They should make Belichick wear a tuxedo on the sidelines for every game the rest of the year as punishment.

Roy Tucker
09-11-2007, 10:04 AM
They should make Belichick wear a tuxedo on the sidelines for every game the rest of the year as punishment.

Or wear a suit like Mike Nolan or Jack Del Rio.

http://images.usatoday.com/sports/_photos/2006/12/07/coaches.jpg

bucksfan2
09-11-2007, 10:12 AM
I read that this has happened before. There is a whole lot of arrogance that is associated with the Pats. It has almost become that both Kraft and Belichick have said we are going to do what we want and don't care what anyone else thinks. That is why I think there is some truth behind this. Not only did Belichick want to beat the Jets he wanted to embarass Mangini. I think he would almost do anything to run up the score on the Jets. Hopefully there comes a time that Belichick is taken down a peg or 20.

cumberlandreds
09-11-2007, 10:18 AM
Make them forfeit the game. If the league did this I bet it would never happen again. A team like New England could care less if they lose a draft pick or two. So make them hurt where it hurts the most.

MWM
09-11-2007, 10:55 AM
Nothing surprises me with Belichick. I'm also of the mind that if it turns out to be true, you absolutely drop the hammer on them. That's blatant cheating. They should have to forfeit the game against the Jets and lose several early round picks for the next few years. A slap on the wrist will not do.

WMR
09-11-2007, 10:59 AM
Nothing surprises me with Belichick. I'm also of the mind that if it turns out to be true, you absolutely drop the hammer on them. That's blatant cheating. They should have to forfeit the game against the Jets and lose several early round picks for the next few years. A slap on the wrist will not do.

Agree completely.

WVRed
09-11-2007, 11:33 AM
Nothing surprises me with Belichick. I'm also of the mind that if it turns out to be true, you absolutely drop the hammer on them. That's blatant cheating. They should have to forfeit the game against the Jets and lose several early round picks for the next few years. A slap on the wrist will not do.

I'd take it a step further and trace it back all the way to the first Super Bowl season. This probably has been going on for a while and possibly even during the three Super Bowls.

Would anybody be opposed to seeing the Patriots forfeit three Super Bowls if this were true?

cincinnati chili
09-11-2007, 12:20 PM
There's no way they'll make them forfeit the game. And let me be clear, I think they SHOULD receive a severe sentence. Losing a first round pick would be a huge penalty. Losing a first and an additional pick would give me new respect for Roger Goodell.

MaineRed
09-11-2007, 01:14 PM
I'd take it a step further and trace it back all the way to the first Super Bowl season. This probably has been going on for a while and possibly even during the three Super Bowls.

Would anybody be opposed to seeing the Patriots forfeit three Super Bowls if this were true?

So next time you get stopped for speeding or some other violation will you be opposed when the cop says:

"Um, Mr WVRed, we can safely assume you have been speeding for, "awhile", so we are going to have to give you a ticket for every time you have gotten behind the wheel. Please wait patiently while I write you out 15,678 tickets for speeding."

Sound OK to you WV?

In what other aspects of life do we catch someone doing something once and then go back and assume they have been doing it all along? Why should this be any different?

I would not be opposed to them having to give up the W. No way it happens though. However talk of taking away their Super Bowl wins is poposterous. Who would be the champion in that case? Why would the NFC champion that lost to the Pats have any more right to the title than the AFC runner-up who lost to the Pats or the team from the previous round that lost to the Pats or a team that missed the play-offs because of a loss or two to the Pats?

durl
09-11-2007, 01:30 PM
Or wear a suit like Mike Nolan or Jack Del Rio.

http://images.usatoday.com/sports/_photos/2006/12/07/coaches.jpg

Slightly off topic, but I think Del Rio and Nolan look great in suits on the sidelines. Belichick looks like he's about to do work around the house.

WMR
09-11-2007, 01:48 PM
I'd like to see Marvin in a sharp-looking suit like that.

justincredible
09-11-2007, 01:49 PM
Belichick always has been and always will be a worthless piece of trash, IMO. Sure, I'm a Jets fan so I have a bias against him, but his arrogance and blatant disregard for the rules make it hard for anyone outside of Patsieland to actually like the guy.

This same camera man was apparently caught doing the same thing when the Pats were in Green Bay last year so I would assume that they have been doing this quite regularly. If the NFL wants to send a message they need to put the hammer down. If a player can get suspended 4, 8 or 16 games, or however long for off the field actions I think a franchise should get just as harsh a punishment for their on the field transgressions. I'm not saying they should have to forfeit half the season, or even this game, but something has to be done to bring this franchise back to reality and let them know they aren't the God of the NFL.

cincinnati chili
09-11-2007, 02:41 PM
So next time you get stopped for speeding or some other violation will you be opposed when the cop says:

"Um, Mr WVRed, we can safely assume you have been speeding for, "awhile", so we are going to have to give you a ticket for every time you have gotten behind the wheel. Please wait patiently while I write you out 15,678 tickets for speeding."

Sound OK to you WV?

In what other aspects of life do we catch someone doing something once and then go back and assume they have been doing it all along? Why should this be any different?

I would not be opposed to them having to give up the W. No way it happens though. However talk of taking away their Super Bowl wins is poposterous. Who would be the champion in that case? Why would the NFC champion that lost to the Pats have any more right to the title than the AFC runner-up who lost to the Pats or the team from the previous round that lost to the Pats or a team that missed the play-offs because of a loss or two to the Pats?

This is a good argument, but I'm not sure we know enough to say that it applies to the Patriots.

Perhaps they were warned about the Green Bay incident.

Certainly if a cop pulls you over and lets you off with a warning, and then catches you again, the cops going to be pissed and prosecute you to the full extent he's allowed.

dabvu2498
09-11-2007, 03:20 PM
This is a good argument, but I'm not sure we know enough to say that it applies to the Patriots.

Perhaps they were warned about the Green Bay incident.

Certainly if a cop pulls you over and lets you off with a warning, and then catches you again, the cops going to be pissed and prosecute you to the full extent he's allowed.

Would that prosecution force you to forfeit any monies that you might have earned if you may or may not have been speeding during the course of employment?

RBA
09-11-2007, 03:27 PM
Sounds like a candidate for "worst person in the NFL".

NJReds
09-11-2007, 03:46 PM
Here's a quote from a Jets' player after the game:
"(Tom Brady) seemed like he knew what we were doing," safety Kerry Rhodes said.

Hmm...I wonder why?

cincinnati chili
09-11-2007, 03:50 PM
Would that prosecution force you to forfeit any monies that you might have earned if you may or may not have been speeding during the course of employment?

All I'm saying is that cops in many states can arrest you for driving without a seat belt. Most cops in such states exercise discretion and decide to either give you a citation or if you're really lucky let you off with a warning.

Likewise, Roger Goodell has a LOT of discretion here. The NFL owners have no union, and as far as I know there's no precedent for this sort of thing.

We know that Goodell warned all the teams about this. If he also warned the Patriots, personally, then I imagine he'll prosecute them to the full extent he thinks he can get away with.

TeamSelig
09-11-2007, 03:59 PM
I think taking away their super bowls might be a little extreme, although I really don't doubt that this was probably used.

1st Round pick gone, heavily fined. I think taking their win away might be a little much. Would it be possible to force them to lose any home field advantage they might get in the playoffs?

If you think about it though, since the Pats have been good (years and years)... they seem to always have the perfect "strategy" and seem to know exactly what the other team intends to do. I think most of the credit has went to Belicheck, but who knows? What if they have been cheating the whole time? IMO a below average team could win a super bowl if they knew what the other team was doing. Not really saying they've always been doing this, but it seems reasonable.

Just another reason to hate the Pats.

dabvu2498
09-11-2007, 04:16 PM
All I'm saying is that cops in many states can arrest you for driving without a seat belt. Most cops in such states exercise discretion and decide to either give you a citation or if you're really lucky let you off with a warning.

Likewise, Roger Goodell has a LOT of discretion here. The NFL owners have no union, and as far as I know there's no precedent for this sort of thing.

We know that Goodell warned all the teams about this. If he also warned the Patriots, personally, then I imagine he'll prosecute them to the full extent he thinks he can get away with.

Gotcha, and in the same turn, you can't retroactively punish an entire organization for something they may or may not have been doing.

bucksfan2
09-11-2007, 04:32 PM
All I'm saying is that cops in many states can arrest you for driving without a seat belt. Most cops in such states exercise discretion and decide to either give you a citation or if you're really lucky let you off with a warning.

Likewise, Roger Goodell has a LOT of discretion here. The NFL owners have no union, and as far as I know there's no precedent for this sort of thing.

We know that Goodell warned all the teams about this. If he also warned the Patriots, personally, then I imagine he'll prosecute them to the full extent he thinks he can get away with.

Its my understanding that Goodell works for the owners. Therefor his job depends on what the owners think of his decisions. If this has happened before and is documented that there was a complaint then this could mean trouble for the Pats. First of all there are going to be 31 upset owners if the find out that they have been doing this for a while. You are going to have 3 very upset organizations in the Jets, Bills, and Dolphins. They play the Pats 3 times a year and would be the most effected. As a bengal fan if you found out that what the Pats were doing effected your game last year wouldn't that piss you off because a W or L in that game determined whether you made the playoffs or not. There is a huge effect off this if it is true. What happens if the Pats beat a team by this form of cheating which took away a home playoff game. How much revenue would that take away from a club. Hopefully there is a ground swell of complaints from the owners and organizatoins that Goodell is forced to act in a very strict manner.

cincinnati chili
09-11-2007, 05:13 PM
Its my understanding that Goodell works for the owners. Therefor his job depends on what the owners think of his decisions.

Exactly. You hit on some major points of the commissioner paradox.

Marge Schott was one of Bud Selig's 30 bosses, but Bud Selig banned her from ownership.

Commissioners have to be leaders and politicians at the same time. They have to make decisions that seem ethical and transparent, but they can't go too far, or they'll lose power.

NJReds
09-11-2007, 05:21 PM
Based on the discussions I've heard on NY sports talk radio, the worst punishment the Pats would face is losing a draft pick, possible more than one. They could get away with just a fine. Depends on what the league investigation turns up.

cincinnati chili
09-11-2007, 05:23 PM
Gotcha, and in the same turn, you can't retroactively punish an entire organization for something they may or may not have been doing.

Gotcha?

You most certainly can punish a party that had plentiful notice more harshly than you would punish a party with lesser notice.

Nothing unethical or illegal about that at all.

MaineRed
09-11-2007, 05:52 PM
This is a good argument, but I'm not sure we know enough to say that it applies to the Patriots.

Perhaps they were warned about the Green Bay incident.

Certainly if a cop pulls you over and lets you off with a warning, and then catches you again, the cops going to be pissed and prosecute you to the full extent he's allowed.

No argument here. That is what I expect to happen. But the full extent of the law isn't taking away their 3 Super Bowls. Not even close. Nothing is done to the team when a guy from a winning team is caught being on drugs. So why should the team face such an extreme penalty for something someone who doesn't even wear pads did?

Reds Fanatic
09-11-2007, 07:05 PM
The league is finding the Patriots guilty of this. The league is considering sanctions including that the Patriots may lose multiple draft choices.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3014677


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, according to league sources.

NFL security officials confiscated a camera and videotape from Patriots video assistant Matt Estrella on the New England sidelines when it was suspected he was recording the Jets' defensive signals. Sources say the visual evidence confirmed the suspicion.

Goodell is considering severe sanctions, including the possibility of docking the Patriots "multiple draft picks" because it is the competitive violation in the wake of a stern warning to all teams since he became commissioner, the sources said. The Patriots have been suspected in previous incidents.

The Patriots will be allowed an opportunity to present their case by Friday, sources said, most likely via the telephone.

The league also was reviewing a possible violation into the number of radio frequencies the Patriots were using during Sunday's game, sources said. The team did not have a satisfactory explanation when asked about possible irregularities in its communication setup during the game.

Goodell is expected to have a decision no later than Friday but that is not set in stone.

The league refused comment but did confirm Monday that they were reviewing a possible violation by the Patriots.

cincinnati chili
09-11-2007, 07:12 PM
Excellent! These upcoming Bellichick press conferences should be a hoot.

oneupper
09-11-2007, 07:23 PM
I'm not that football-savvy. Maybe someone else can help me.

This is what I understand.

- Patriots film Defensive signals.
- Patriots see resulting formation/setup/play
- Once matched...
- Patriots see signal
- Patriots know which play is being called.

Is this a correct assessment of what we are talking about?

MWM
09-11-2007, 08:46 PM
Last time I checked, my driving on the roads wasn't a competitive endeavor generating billios of dollars of revenue based on the principle of fair competition. It's apples and asparagus.

This is going to cast a huge shadow over the Pats success this year or even the last couple of years. KNowing what the defense is doing is a HUGE advantage. This makes me lose all respect for an organization I had a lot of it for.

Heck, if it's determined that Bellechick was behind it, I think he should be suspended for the rest of the year.

Reds Fanatic
09-11-2007, 09:01 PM
I'm not that football-savvy. Maybe someone else can help me.

This is what I understand.

- Patriots film Defensive signals.
- Patriots see resulting formation/setup/play
- Once matched...
- Patriots see signal
- Patriots know which play is being called.

Is this a correct assessment of what we are talking about?
That is exactly what we are talking about. There is no reason to think they have not tried this before so they could know the signals different teams use to call plays which would give them a huge advantage. See the play called by the defense then the coordinator talks to Brady over the headset tells him what to expect so they run a play to counter that defense.

MWM
09-11-2007, 09:11 PM
That is exactly what we are talking about. There is no reason to think they have not tried this before so they could know the signals different teams use to call plays which would give them a huge advantage. See the play called by the defense then the coordinator talks to Brady over the headset tells him what to expect so they run a play to counter that defense.

Yep, and if they're able to do this with accuracy, I don't think you can underestimate how big of an advantage this is, especially with a QB as smart as Brady.

KronoRed
09-11-2007, 09:15 PM
If the Pats are doing this I find it hard to believe other teams aren't doing it as well.

RBA
09-11-2007, 09:19 PM
If the Pats are doing this I find it hard to believe other teams aren't doing it as well.

But if the Raiders are doing it, they are so bad it's not even helping them.

MaineRed
09-11-2007, 10:26 PM
Call it what you want, it is ridiculous to think Super Bowl trophies are going to be returned over this. It doesn't matter how much money is generated or who is involved, in our society we don't penalize people for past crimes that we can't prove. When some wacko gets arrested for murdering 8 people, we don't just assume that he must be responsible for other unsolved crimes. We have to prove it. We need evidence. It is the same thing here, apples and apples.

There is no proof that the Pats did this during their Super Bowl wins or other play-off wins. No matter how much you believe they had to be doing it all along, it needs to be proven before you can hand out such drastic penalties. I don't think taking away the win over the Jets is out of the question at all. As I said earlier I don't expect it to happen but I also don't think it would be unfair.

What I find amazing is that the Pats were trying to pull this off on the road. Wouldn't it be much easier to spy at home where you could easily conceal a cameraman?

RBA
09-11-2007, 11:00 PM
I would blackball the cameraman until I'm satisfied he's giving me all he knows.

WVRed
09-11-2007, 11:41 PM
So next time you get stopped for speeding or some other violation will you be opposed when the cop says:

"Um, Mr WVRed, we can safely assume you have been speeding for, "awhile", so we are going to have to give you a ticket for every time you have gotten behind the wheel. Please wait patiently while I write you out 15,678 tickets for speeding."

Sound OK to you WV?

In what other aspects of life do we catch someone doing something once and then go back and assume they have been doing it all along? Why should this be any different?

I would not be opposed to them having to give up the W. No way it happens though. However talk of taking away their Super Bowl wins is poposterous. Who would be the champion in that case? Why would the NFC champion that lost to the Pats have any more right to the title than the AFC runner-up who lost to the Pats or the team from the previous round that lost to the Pats or a team that missed the play-offs because of a loss or two to the Pats?

You could make that same argument to defend Shoeless Joe Jackson or Pete Rose for betting on sports and changing the outcome of the games in which they played.

If a team is blatantly cheating, they should be dealt with severely. This is my suggestion.

1.Bill Belicheck is suspended the rest of this season.

2.The Patriots lose three first round picks. If the Minnesota Timberwolves can be stripped of five draft picks for what happened with Joe Smith, this should be equal punishment.

3.See how far back this has been going on, full on investigation. If the Patriots had been doing this ever since Belicheck became head coach, then the Patriots should be stripped of the three titles. Using Pete Rose as an example, if he can be omitted from the HOF even though he holds the record for hits, then the Patriots run can be omitted as well.

If you want an example, see the death penalty to SMU.

traderumor
09-11-2007, 11:57 PM
This is a serious "integrity of the game" infraction. I think a forfeit plus a high round draft pick is more fitting punishment considering the crime. And I don't see how Bellichick cannot be involved. While we're here, I've thought that there is a lot of potential for corruption in the sideline formation photos that are waiting on the respective units when they come off the field. The more you introduce technology like that, it removes the human element and reduces the spirit of fair athletic competition.

Dom Heffner
09-11-2007, 11:57 PM
I would blackball the cameraman until I'm satisfied he's giving me all he knows.

Give him the Casino Royale treatment. Just tear out the bottom of a chair and let 'er rip. :)

SteelSD
09-12-2007, 01:07 AM
Yep, and if they're able to do this with accuracy, I don't think you can underestimate how big of an advantage this is, especially with a QB as smart as Brady.

Absolutely. The Patriots have long been a team somewhat short on talent who've produced results based on having better gameplanning than their opponents.

krono makes a good point that other teams should be punished as well if they've been caught doing this and I'd certainly support that (even if it was my fav team). However, the Pats have quite obviously been doing this for quite some time. It's likely affected division championships, playoffs and, potentially, Super Bowls. No Super Bowl trophies are likely to be returned over this, but count me as someone who won't possibly count the Pats' run as anything resembling a "dynasty" at this point.

Do I think they should forfeit a game? Yep. Won't happen, but that would be fair for starters. I'd support a penalty that would see the Pats lose their 1st and 2nd rounders in 2008 plus their first rounder for 2009. Next, if a link to Belicheck can be established, he should be suspended indefinitely as should any coach who used the information garnered from the cheating. Lastly, if a link can be established to Tom Brady considering the radio frequency issues noted, then he should be suspended for at least five games.

You can't erase the past even if it needs to be marginalized at this point (and it really does). But what the league can do is send a strong message that the Patriots are no longer the golden child of a league that prides itself on parity and fair play.

Caveat Emperor
09-12-2007, 01:14 AM
I'm completely in favor of making an example out of the Patriots here in much the same way that the league has made examples out of players like Pacman Jones and Chris Henry.

My suggestion would be a complete forfeit of their Day 1 draft selections in the 2008 draft and dropping their Day 2 picks to the bottom of every round (they pick last in Round 4, last in Round 5, etc.).

Any coach found to be complicit in this process should also face minimum of a 4 game suspension, during which time they are to have no contact with the team, coaches or players.

Zero tolerance for players should mean zero tolerance for coaches and organizations as well.

Caseyfan21
09-12-2007, 01:33 AM
I think Belicheck should get suspended since he is the head coach and should have control over his sideline. Give him a 4-5 game suspension that bars him from participating or doing anything with the team. Then maybe take a couple draft picks as well.

I have a feeling the Pats will end up losing maybe 2 lower draft picks at the worst. The Pats are the NFL's golden child and the league probably wants this to pass over as quickly as possible.

We'll see if Goodell is really the tough guy he's made out to be in this situation.

cincinnati chili
09-12-2007, 02:39 AM
I don't think Goodell wants to draw attention to this by suspending Belichick or forcing the return of Super Bowl trophies.

I think he'll make an example of the Patriots to the extent that it eradicates this behavior permanently without turning this into a lingering scandal. Michael Vick is enough.

M2
09-12-2007, 02:50 AM
Umm, isn't anyone here familiar with a little thing called the Patriot Act? Per an act of Congress, New England's allowed to do this. They've also been looking into what books Eric Mangini checks out from the library. If anything they should be awarded an extra win for keeping the division safe from insurgents.

camisadelgolf
09-12-2007, 05:00 AM
Give him the Casino Royale treatment. Just tear out the bottom of a chair and let 'er rip. :)

Are you implying that Bill Belichik has an itch?

MaineRed
09-12-2007, 08:34 AM
WVRed, you are making my point for me. Yes Pete Rose is not in the HOF but did the Reds have to give back the World Series trophies they won? Did Rose have to give back the hits? Is he still not the all time hits leader?

It blows me away that you are comparing stripping a team of very good football players of 3 Super Bowl wins over the actions of someone who doesn't wear a uniform to a single player not being in the HOF for his own actions. Pete was penalized for what Pete did. The Cincinnati Reds were not penalized for them. At least not anywhere near the level that you want the Pats punished.

You'd have a different opinon on the matter if the Reds were stripped of their 75 and 76 World Series wins because, "Pete Rose was banned for betting on baseball and we can safely assume he has been betting his entire career (despite very little evidence) and thus we have to go back and ban him from the start of said career. Congrats to the Red Sox and Yankees for their 75 and 76 World Series wins."

If Bud Selig made that announcement you'd be OK with it because that is what you want for the Pats?

Before YOU bring in the apples and asparagaus remember that you brought up Pete, not me.

Roy Tucker
09-12-2007, 09:57 AM
It should be interesting to see how the NFL views this. Do they consider it a heinous crime or just a mild transgression? Don't know. I don't think there is any precedent. Just my gut feel, but I don't think the NFL wants to make a firestorm out of this.

Returning Super Bowl trophies is out of the question, I'd be hugely surprised if a game was forfeited. I'd be surprised if there were high draft picks taken away. I could see a 1 game suspension for Belichick or for some assistant coach the Pats throw under the bus. But I don't think that's likely either.

Two low draft picks and a stern warning from the NFL is what I see.

Roy Tucker
09-12-2007, 10:08 AM
And actually, I've always wondered why offenses get to use a radio and QB headphones while the defenses have to hand-signal.

The days of QBs calling their own plays and middle linebackers calling the defense seem so antiquated now. Coaches control everything;

bucksfan2
09-12-2007, 10:11 AM
There is a whole lot of backlash for this incident. I think mainly it has to deal with the arrogance of both the organization and its fans. However I think they should be delt with and delt with harshly. I dont know how each team signals its defensive signals to the field but I would assume there are multiple people giving the signal along with a trigger signal that alerts you when the real signal is coming. I would assume that they change signals from week to week but do not do so during the game. With the reciever in each qb's helmet I would assume it would take less that 10 seconds to radio the signal to Brady what defense is being called. The pats still had to execute the plays but the issue I have with this is it would be similar to a baseball team knowing every pitch that was being thrown. Every biltz that was called you would know where to go with the hot route. Every stunt that was called you would know how that was happening. Basically what the Pats have is they know what formation and what the defense is doing on most plays. Outside of an outstanding individual effort the Pats will be successful on most plays. If this isn't a serious issue I don't know what is. Goodell needs to come down harshly on this or he will lose some credability with everyone outside of NE. And to you NE fans, the NFL DOES exist in 30 more cities.

Slyder
09-12-2007, 11:24 AM
Wow the Patriots are bigger frauds than what even the Raider Nation thought they were. I will never respect the franchise nor the coach. I hope the NFL makes an example out of them.

Forfeit the game, ban the man that was caught from ALL NFL facilities or from having contact with any NFL franchise, Fine the Patriot, suspend Belliache depending on how strongly tied he is to this, ban anyone from upstairs or within the organization that was involved from ALL NFL facilities, their 1st round pick next year, plus additional penalties and a warning get caught doing this again and were going to make you ineligible for the playoffs and look at old tapes/investigate previous "accusations" (IE Jags coach saying their radio frequency was jammed) to see just how often this could have occured in the past and further punishments could stem from this.

camisadelgolf
09-12-2007, 11:45 AM
WVRed, you are making my point for me. Yes Pete Rose is not in the HOF but did the Reds have to give back the World Series trophies they won? Did Rose have to give back the hits? Is he still not the all time hits leader?

It blows me away that you are comparing stripping a team of very good football players of 3 Super Bowl wins over the actions of someone who doesn't wear a uniform to a single player not being in the HOF for his own actions. Pete was penalized for what Pete did. The Cincinnati Reds were not penalized for them. At least not anywhere near the level that you want the Pats punished.

You'd have a different opinon on the matter if the Reds were stripped of their 75 and 76 World Series wins because, "Pete Rose was banned for betting on baseball and we can safely assume he has been betting his entire career (despite very little evidence) and thus we have to go back and ban him from the start of said career. Congrats to the Red Sox and Yankees for their 75 and 76 World Series wins."

If Bud Selig made that announcement you'd be OK with it because that is what you want for the Pats?

Before YOU bring in the apples and asparagaus remember that you brought up Pete, not me.

Pete Rose's gambling was not considered cheating, am I right? Supposedly, he never bet on the Reds to lose.

M2
09-12-2007, 01:14 PM
Wow, people really hate the Patriots. I had no idea (probably because I pay so little attention to football). I mean, take away their Super Bowl trophies for a little bit a cloak and dagger a few years later? Only sheer loathing can give rise to that kind of absurdity.

I've got to admit, I really like that they've offended the sensibilities of so many. I'm kind of hoping they go 16-0 and then win the Super Bowl just so I can watch a nation gnash its teeth.

cincinnati chili
09-12-2007, 01:21 PM
The days of QBs calling their own plays and middle linebackers calling the defense seem so antiquated now. Coaches control everything;


Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Tony Dungy gives Payton Manning carte blanche on controlling plays. Has this changed recently?

For the most part, I think you're correct.

MaineRed
09-12-2007, 01:38 PM
Pete Rose's gambling was not considered cheating, am I right? Supposedly, he never bet on the Reds to lose.


I'm not going to argue about Pete Rose. As I said I wasn't the one who brought him into this. He is irrelevant to the conversation. The fact that he isn't allowed in the HOF is no comparison to taking away a 53 man teams Super Bowl wins.

If Goodell wants to ban Belichek then that is equal punishment. I don't understand how anyone with half a thought could compare banning one guy who played on a 25 man team that won championshisps to stripping a 53 man team that won championships of their titles.

Is it really THAT hard to see what an equal comparison would be to taking away the Pats 3 Super Bowl wins for the Reds during the Pete Rose era?

Banning a guy whose career is over to taking away 3 SB wins?

Calling it absurd is giving it WAY too much credit.

cincy jacket
09-12-2007, 01:56 PM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Tony Dungy gives Payton Manning carte blanche on controlling plays. Has this changed recently?

For the most part, I think you're correct.

One of their coaches was on ESPN radio the other day and they said they send in 4 plays to him, 2 runs and 2 passes. He then looks at the defense and chooses from that list. He can always audible to something different if he wants they said but most time he chooses a play from the 4 sent in.

KronoRed
09-12-2007, 02:16 PM
Pete Rose's gambling was not considered cheating, am I right? Supposedly, he never bet on the Reds to lose.

Supposedly, but the games where he didn't bet on the Reds to win were really a nodnodwinkwink to his gambling buddys that he didn't think they were going to win.

Caveat Emperor
09-12-2007, 02:42 PM
One of their coaches was on ESPN radio the other day and they said they send in 4 plays to him, 2 runs and 2 passes. He then looks at the defense and chooses from that list. He can always audible to something different if he wants they said but most time he chooses a play from the 4 sent in.

There was an interview in a magazine last year where they said that Manning gets 4 plays (2 runs, 2 passes) and calls one of those based on what he sees.

Then, he calls out specific protection orders for the line based on wherever he reads pressure as coming from. He also has the ability to, with hand signals and audible commands, alter the routes that each of his wideouts are running. I think they have 9 or 10 different "hot signals" that Manning can use to adjust a previously set route. He has the ability to adjust the route of each individual receiver prior to the snap.

So yeah -- they give him 4 plays, but they give him complete freedom to adjust and tweak those plays based on what he sees out there.

WVRed
09-12-2007, 03:25 PM
I'm not going to argue about Pete Rose. As I said I wasn't the one who brought him into this. He is irrelevant to the conversation. The fact that he isn't allowed in the HOF is no comparison to taking away a 53 man teams Super Bowl wins.

If Goodell wants to ban Belichek then that is equal punishment. I don't understand how anyone with half a thought could compare banning one guy who played on a 25 man team that won championshisps to stripping a 53 man team that won championships of their titles.

Is it really THAT hard to see what an equal comparison would be to taking away the Pats 3 Super Bowl wins for the Reds during the Pete Rose era?

Banning a guy whose career is over to taking away 3 SB wins?

Calling it absurd is giving it WAY too much credit.

I'm assuming you are a Patriots fan?:)

I hit on this in the other post, but if any analogy works(even though comparing college and pro sports is apples and oranges), it would be the SMU Mustangs who received the "Death Penalty" during the 1980's for the boosters paying their players, or for that matter the Minnesota Timberwolves for the Joe Smith signing. With SMU, they were on probation SEVEN times before the penalty was levied, and the Patriots had been warned before.

Here is a list of what happened for those who either don't remember or aren't old enough:


SMU football had already been placed on three years' probation in 1985, but in 1986 faced allegations that players were being paid. The alleged violations were: 21 players allegedly received approximately $61,000 in cash payments, with the assistance of athletics department staff members, from funds provided by a booster. Payments ranged from $50 to $725 per month and occurred while SMU was on probation. Also, SMU officials lied to NCAA officials about when the payments stopped.

As a result:

The 1987 season was cancelled.
All home games in 1988 were cancelled, but SMU was allowed to play their seven regularly scheduled away games so that other institutions would not be financially affected.
SMU was banned from bowl games and television in 1988 and 1989.
The team's existing probation was extended two more years, to 1990.
SMU lost 55 new scholarship positions over 4 years.
The team was only allowed to hire five full-time assistant coaches, instead of the typical nine.
The infractions committee cited the need to "eliminate a program that was built on a legacy of wrongdoing, deceit and rule violations" as a factor in what is still the harshest penalty ever meted out to any major collegiate program. It also cited SMU's past history of violations; at the time SMU had been on probation seven times, more than any other school.

All recruits and players were allowed to transfer without losing eligibility, and most did so. New coach Forrest Gregg was left with an underweight lineup made up mostly of freshmen. As a result, SMU canceled the 1988 season as well, claiming it was unable to field a competitive team.





[edit] Fallout
Before the "death penalty" was instituted SMU was one of the most storied programs in college football, with a Heisman Trophy winner (Doak Walker in 1949), one national championship and 10 Southwest Conference titles. The Mustangs compiled 52-19-1 record from 1980 until 1986, including an undefeated season in 1982.

Afterwards, players were reluctant to attend a school with a history of such major recruiting violations. In addition, the loss of 55 scholarships meant that it would be 1992 before the Mustangs were able to field a team with a full complement of scholarship players; it would be another year before it fielded a team comprised entirely of players unaffected by the scandal.

Since 1989 SMU has only defeated 2 ranked teams, has only 1 winning season, and is 57-142-3.[1] The death penalty decimated the Southwest Conference's reputation and finances, contributing to the collapse of the entire conference in 1996. One of the most memorable quotes about the death penalty came from former University of Florida President John Lombardi, now president of the Louisiana State University System: "SMU taught the committee that the death penalty is too much like the atomic bomb. It's like what happened after we dropped the (atom) bomb in World War II. The results were so catastrophic that now we'll do anything to avoid dropping another one.”[2]

Author and columnist David Whitford wrote and published the book "A Payroll to Meet: Greed, Scandal, and Football at Southern Methodist University." It is an account of both the death penalty and SMU football in the 1980's. It chronicles Ron Meyer's and Bobby Collins' success at SMU in the early 80's and the scandals that brought about the NCAA punishment on February 27th, 1987.

I also never said that the Panthers, Rams, or Eagles should be awarded Super Bowl wins because of this. If anything, treat it as if there was never a winner. Also, I personally do not think the Jets would have won the game even if the Patriots were cheating, but the Patriots should get a loss, even though the Jets should not win.

This isn't about "hating the Patriots" as M2 put it. This is about a team that has blatantly broken NFL rules and has been warned about it in the past, and likely is going to get a slap on the wrist because the NFL does not want to alienate a major city. If a story broke tomorrow that Marvin Lewis had been doing this, I would also make the same comments, and I am a Bengals fan.

M2
09-12-2007, 03:47 PM
WV, there's a difference between levying a penalty for a rules violation and handing down a death penalty. I find the calls for Roger Goodell to play the role of Hammurabi more than a little amusing.

traderumor
09-12-2007, 03:59 PM
It's just a matter of interpretation, folks. It seems that they were looking for a hand model and the sidelines was the best place to get a really good camera angle. The rule book didn't explicitly forbid that activity, so, sorry.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/ap_on_sp_fo_ne/fbn_nfl_spying

Pats' coach speaks with NFL about spying By JIMMY GOLEN, AP Sports Writer
1 hour, 37 minutes ago



FOXBOROUGH, Mass. - New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick apologized to his team on Wednesday and confirmed that he has spoken to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell about his "interpretation" of league rules that ban videotaping of the opposing sideline.

It was not clear what Belichick was apologizing for, and the coach repeatedly refused to elaborate on a one-paragraph statement issued 10 minutes before a regularly scheduled news conference to discuss Sunday night's game against the San Diego Chargers.

"At this point, we have not been notified of the league's ruling," Belichick said in a statement. "Although it remains a league matter, I want to apologize to everyone who has been affected, most of all ownership, staff and players. Following the league's decision, I will have further comment."

The statement said Belichick spoke with Goodell this week about a "videotaping procedure" during last Sunday's game and "my interpretation of the rules."

After about 15 minutes discussing Sunday's game, Belichick was pressed harder on his "interpretation of the rules," and the coach walked out of the room.

NFL security confiscated a video camera and tape from a Patriots employee during New England's 38-14 victory over the New York Jets on Sunday. The employee was accused of aiming his camera at the Jets' defensive coaches as they signaled to players on the field.

ESPN.com, citing league sources, reported Tuesday that Goodell has determined the Patriots violated league rules that ban videotaping of defensive signals. The report also said the Patriots have not yet presented their case to the league.

The Web site's report said Goodell is considering severe sanctions, including docking the Patriots "multiple draft picks." A league spokesman said only that an investigation is under way, and both teams said no decision has been made.

Asked repeatedly to elaborate on the statement and the effect it might have on his team, Belichick was left begging for football questions. But few in the media workroom had come to hear about San Diego.

"Any questions about the Chargers?" he pleaded in his standard other-things-to-do monotone. "Want to talk about the football game? If not, I think that statement pretty much covers it."

It appeared that he might find no takers, before one reporter asked about defending against Chargers running back LaDainian Tomlinson.

The coach smiled.

"Whatever happens out there Sunday night, out there on the field, that's where everybody will make their statement," he said.

MaineRed
09-12-2007, 04:23 PM
The only thing that SMU and the Patriots have in common is the fact that Craig James played for both teams. Thanks for the irrelevant history lesson though.

As for your assumption that I am a Pats fan. WRONG. Die hard 49ers fan if you must know. Do you really think only a Pats fan would defend them against what YOU are saying?

I already told you I would be fine if they took away the win. No Pats fan is going to tell you that.

Caveat Emperor
09-12-2007, 05:06 PM
WV, there's a difference between levying a penalty for a rules violation and handing down a death penalty. I find the calls for Roger Goodell to play the role of Hammurabi more than a little amusing.

Why he should he treat the organization, which has been previously warned about this sort of behavior, any differently than he does players who are repeat offenders?

M2
09-12-2007, 05:58 PM
Why he should he treat the organization, which has been previously warned about this sort of behavior, any differently than he does players who are repeat offenders?

As with most things, it depends on the offense. Like I said, there's a lot of folks playing Hammurabi around here, arguing that the minimum penalty here ought to be chopping off a hand. Seems to me that if this were the sort of thing that draws a finger wag the first time, then the penalty is probably a nominal fine (money, draft picks, whatever). If this were the football equivalent of armed robbery then it wouldn't have registered only a stern talking to beforehand and retroactively removing a team's championships for an offense committed seasons later is just patently ridiculous. Hell, that's like giving you and everyone related to you the death penalty for some garden variety fraud. I mean is there anyone who thinks that teams haven't forever had folks with binoculars or keen eyesight looking to pickup the signals from the other sideline?

It's the "They did something wrong! Kill them!" response that I find over the top.

Betterread
09-12-2007, 06:30 PM
Like I said, there's a lot of folks playing Hammurabi around here, arguing that the minimum penalty here ought to be chopping off a hand.
Since you used a reference to Hammurabi twice, I thought that I would point out that (to me) he is more well known as one of the earlier codifier of laws - the Code of Hammurabi. In recognition of his stature, his bust is on the US house of representative and the Supreme Court Building.
Draco, the Athenian law-giver, while also famous for his codification of laws and the penalties for breaking them, is more commonly associated with (what seems to us in the 21st century) very harsh penalties "Draconian" laws.
It seems as though Draco, rather than Hammurabi, would be more applicable for your example.

M2
09-12-2007, 06:52 PM
Since you used a reference to Hammurabi twice, I thought that I would point out that (to me) he is more well known as one of the earlier codifier of laws - the Code of Hammurabi. In recognition of his stature, his bust is on the US house of representative and the Supreme Court Building.
Draco, the Athenian law-giver, while also famous for his codification of laws and the penalties for breaking them, is more commonly associated with (what seems to us in the 21st century) very harsh penalties "Draconian" laws.
It seems as though Draco, rather than Hammurabi, would be more applicable for your example.

Either would applicable. You're not going to find anyone lining up to live under either system. Hammurabi was big on throwing folks in the river.

MWM
09-12-2007, 10:39 PM
I think taking away anything from past seasons would be ridiculous. I don't think forfeiting the game where they had proof they were using it to cheat is too much. Personally, I think that if it's found out to be what it appears to be on the surface, they should forfeit that game and Bellechick should face some kind of suspension. I don't think the rest of the year is too steep. I'm against going backwards to punish, but I'm not against dropping the hammer for blatant cheating. Personally, I don't think losing draft picks hurts the Pats that much.

oneupper
09-12-2007, 10:59 PM
I think taking away anything from past seasons would be ridiculous. I don't think forfeiting the game where they had proof they were using it to cheat is too much. Personally, I think that if it's found out to be what it appears to be on the surface, they should forfeit that game and Bellechick should face some kind of suspension. I don't think the rest of the year is too steep. I'm against going backwards to punish, but I'm not against dropping the hammer for blatant cheating. Personally, I don't think losing draft picks hurts the Pats that much.

You're advocating for a forfeit of the game and a year suspension for the coach?

Sounds harsh (not that I disagree). Is there any precedent?

MWM
09-12-2007, 11:30 PM
You're advocating for a forfeit of the game and a year suspension for the coach?

Sounds harsh (not that I disagree). Is there any precedent?

I don't think there's a precedent for someone getting caught for something like this. At some point, there wasn't a precedent for anything. Precedents have to be set initially.

My rationale is that if you have solid evidence that they cheated in a specific game, then they shouldn't have the benefit of that win. They probably win anyway, but if they cheated, they should be forced to take a L.

And I take cheating VERY seriously. That's why I think the individual responsible should be held accountable with a severe penalty. But I woudn't want the fans or the players punished for something that's not their doing. So I'd penalize the coach who was behind the cheating. That seems fair to everyone, IMO. Punish the cheater, but don't make everyone else suffer.

MaineRed
09-13-2007, 12:04 AM
If you want precedent in sports, look at NASCAR. They find a blatant rules violation on Jimmy Johnson's car, Chad Knause the crew chief gets suspended and a new crew chief has to take over.

Suspend BB from contact with the Pats for 2-3 weeks if this is deemed serious enough. That is up to the commish. Not sure why anyone would be worried about him handing out too soft of a penalty. The guy could double for Putin.

Roy Tucker
09-13-2007, 12:55 AM
I'm a little curious what using the video camera was achieving.

Were they taping the signals so that they could analyze the signals vs. game films after the game to figure out what signals meant what defense and use it in the future?

Or was it displaying the signals to a monitor somewhere? And how is that different from binoculars?

WVRed
09-13-2007, 09:25 AM
I don't think there's a precedent for someone getting caught for something like this. At some point, there wasn't a precedent for anything. Precedents have to be set initially.

My rationale is that if you have solid evidence that they cheated in a specific game, then they shouldn't have the benefit of that win. They probably win anyway, but if they cheated, they should be forced to take a L.

And I take cheating VERY seriously. That's why I think the individual responsible should be held accountable with a severe penalty. But I woudn't want the fans or the players punished for something that's not their doing. So I'd penalize the coach who was behind the cheating. That seems fair to everyone, IMO. Punish the cheater, but don't make everyone else suffer.

It depends on who was complacent. If Robert Kraft knew this was going on, wouldn't you want more done? If they were sending the plays to Tom Brady through his helmet, wouldnt you want to see him suspended?

I think this goes much deeper than Belicheck, but I hope i'm wrong.

M2
09-13-2007, 11:31 AM
If they were sending the plays to Tom Brady through his helmet, wouldnt you want to see him suspended?

So Tom Brady should be penalized because he's gets the plays relayed to him?

From the Code of Hammurabi:

"If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death."

bucksfan2
09-13-2007, 12:11 PM
Why break the rules if it doesn't help. Obviously this helped the Pats out or they wouldn't continue to do it.

On another note the Super Bowl is one of the most televised event each year. There are countless cameras and camera angles that are available each year. What if it comes out that the Pats had an illegal camera at each super bowl victory? With the advance in technology in today's game defensive play calls can be turned around and translated to the qb very very quickly.

HumnHilghtFreel
09-13-2007, 12:19 PM
The league office is requiring the Patriots to change their logo.

http://bogp.com/recordingits.gif

;)

blumj
09-13-2007, 01:18 PM
Why break the rules if it doesn't help. Obviously this helped the Pats out or they wouldn't continue to do it.

On another note the Super Bowl is one of the most televised event each year. There are countless cameras and camera angles that are available each year. What if it comes out that the Pats had an illegal camera at each super bowl victory? With the advance in technology in today's game defensive play calls can be turned around and translated to the qb very very quickly.

They must think it helps them, but you're talking about a team that was one measly little 1st down away from winning the AFCCG last year and couldn't get it. The same team that got to the AFCCG last year by recovering a fumbled interception. The same team that was outscored in the 2nd halves of 2 of their SB wins, and that lost another playoff game 2 years ago on a 4th quarter interception. It's hard to see how they'd have managed to screw up that badly if they'd known what defenses their opponents were calling.

Caveat Emperor
09-13-2007, 02:25 PM
From the Code of Hammurabi:

"If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death."

Maybe now isn't the best time, but we still do punish Theft and Receiving Stolen Property as basically the same level of offense. :D

M2
09-13-2007, 05:05 PM
Maybe now isn't the best time, but we still do punish Theft and Receiving Stolen Property as basically the same level of offense. :D

Yeah, but you've got to receive it knowing it's been stolen these days in order to be up for charges. That wasn't always the case.

dabvu2498
09-13-2007, 05:18 PM
Yeah, but you've got to receive it knowing it's been stolen these days in order to be up for charges. That wasn't always the case.

In Ohio it's "knowing or having reasonable cause to believe" that the property had been stolen.

That gets deliciously murky at times.

Highlifeman21
09-13-2007, 05:21 PM
If the Pats aren't forced to give up at least their draft picks in Rounds 1-3 for the 2008 draft, then why bother punishing them?

Mario-Rijo
09-13-2007, 08:30 PM
The league office is requiring the Patriots to change their logo.

http://bogp.com/recordingits.gif

;)

Oh that's good, and for those who for whatever reason didn't hit the link here it is.

Click the pic for larger image.

WMR
09-13-2007, 09:39 PM
WCVB Exclusive: NFL To Fine Belichick, Pats

Coach To Pay $500,000

BOSTON -- WCVB has learned the NFL will punish the New England Patriots and the team's coach, Bill Belichick, after the team got caught taping signals during the Jets game, sources confirmed Thursday.

SportsCenter 5's Mike Lynch reported that a decision will be announced Friday, but WCVB sources have said the NFL will fine Belichick $500,000. The fine has to be paid by Belichick himself and cannot be paid by the team's owner, Robert Kraft.

In addition to the fine, the Patriots must forfeit two high draft choices. They could be as high as a first- and a third-round draft choice, sources said.

A letter will be faxed to Belichick telling him of the NFL's decision, and he will not be required to appear in person at the NFL headquarters in New York City.

The controversy started when a Patriots cameraman was caught videotaping a New York Jets coach's signals during last weekend's season-opening game.

In a news conference Wednesday, Belichick issued a terse written statement before his regular weekly team news conference saying, "Although it remains a league matter, I want to apologize to everyone who has been affected, most of all ownership, staff and players. Following the league's decision, I will have further comment."

Belichick indicated he may have misinterpreted the National Football League's rules regarding recording games.

"Earlier this week, I spoke with Commissioner (Roger) Goodell about a videotaping procedure during last Sunday's game and my interpretation of the rules. At this point, we have not been notified of the league's ruling," Belichick said.

The Patriots were accused of spying during Sunday's game against the New York Jets by Jets coach Eric Mangini. NFL security officials confiscated a video camera from Patriots video assistant Matt Estrella on the sideline Sunday.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/sports/14109617/detail.html

RBA
09-13-2007, 09:48 PM
Ouch, $500,000? Ouch.

RFS62
09-13-2007, 09:50 PM
Outstanding.

Reds Fanatic
09-13-2007, 10:02 PM
The draft picks they have to give up are a first round pick next year if they make the playoffs this year or a 2nd and 3rd round pick next year if they don't make the playoffs this year.

WMR
09-13-2007, 10:35 PM
I thought it was a first and third if they DO make the playoffs and a 2nd and 3rd if they don't?

rotnoid
09-13-2007, 10:35 PM
Here's one thing the NCAA gets right. The punishment to a college team would have been much more damning to the program. I'm seeing several years of probation and a post season ban, plus a loss of scholarships. Cheating of this level is beyond belief. The league should have punished them to Cardinals levels.

UKFlounder
09-13-2007, 10:56 PM
I don't like the punishment. They fine the Pats $750K (assuming they give Belichick a raise to pay his $500K), yet take away two high draft picks.

Taking away those picks, also takes away the need to pay them, and they money the Pats save on those salaries/bonuses makes up for the money paid in fines.

And even though losing a pick or picks will hurt them in the future, they cheated this year, yet suffer no on-field disadvantage this year. At least suspend him for a game or two and make them suffer competitively since they tried to gain a competitive edge. Nothing this punishment does will hurt the team this year.

Reds Fanatic
09-13-2007, 11:17 PM
I thought it was a first and third if they DO make the playoffs and a 2nd and 3rd if they don't?No it is just a first if they make the playoffs. By the way through a trade the Patriots have 2 first round picks next year. So it would just be one of these first round picks.

MaineRed
09-13-2007, 11:25 PM
Here's one thing the NCAA gets right. The punishment to a college team would have been much more damning to the program. I'm seeing several years of probation and a post season ban, plus a loss of scholarships. Cheating of this level is beyond belief. The league should have punished them to Cardinals levels.

How do you put an NFL team on, "probation"?

Suggesting a postseason ban for the leagues top franchise is more absurd than WVRed arguing that they should be stripped of the three Super Bowls. This is a baseball board, right? Well isn't stealing signs a time honored tradition in baseball?

Funny how moral some get though when a team they don't like is taking advantage of it. I realize the Pats took it a step farther than baseball teams do, at least as far as we know but to me stealing signs is stealing signs. I really don't think the method used to steal said signs is that big of an international incident.

You mentioned the loss of scholarships. Well losing a first rounder is pretty big. That is a player that the Pats would be plugging in as a starter.

Caveat Emperor
09-13-2007, 11:30 PM
Ouch, $500,000? Ouch.

For a person who has been a top-tier coach as long as Belichick, a $500,000 fine is the financial equivalent of a mild scolding. If they had wanted to send a message, they'd have forced him to miss some game time or gotten the fine out of the 6 figure range and into something that forces Belichick to take notice.

Color me unimpressed with the league's choice of punishment and disappointed that they seem so willing to drop the death sentence on players who are repeat offenders off the field but unwilling to drop similarly harsh punishment on executives and coaches who are repeat offenders ON the field.

Smells like a heaping load of hypocrisy to me.

blumj
09-13-2007, 11:31 PM
Okay, let me ask you guys a serious question: if Belichick suddenly became available, would you want your team to hire him? Knowing everything you know now, would you want to root for a team that he coached?

Newport Red
09-13-2007, 11:57 PM
If I'm a Cleveland fan, and I'm not, I'd hire him in a heartbeat.

Betterread
09-14-2007, 12:07 AM
The rule Belicheck broke is part of the NFL manual of conduct. Its ethically reprehensible. The NFL had a chance to enforce its code with a strict penalty. But this is 21st century America. Work Ethics are not respected at many workplaces. Belicheck is a winner of Super Bowls and is considered the best coach in the game. Who cares if he cheats? Not the NFL.
I know this is a shallow analysis. But it is the prevailing view of most people - as long as you win, it doesn't matter what methods you use.
Congratulations Bill. You won again. The only thing you haven't won is personal integrity. And you'll never win that prize.

SteelSD
09-14-2007, 01:42 AM
How do you put an NFL team on, "probation"?

Suggesting a postseason ban for the leagues top franchise is more absurd than WVRed arguing that they should be stripped of the three Super Bowls. This is a baseball board, right? Well isn't stealing signs a time honored tradition in baseball?

Stealing signs in baseball via real-time viewing is part of the game. Ditto if NFL coaches were doing that sans cameras across a field that is 53.3 yards wide. But that's not what the Pats were doing. There's a reason NFL teams can't have cameras pointed at the opponent's sideline during games. Apples and oranges.


Funny how moral some get though when a team they don't like is taking advantage of it. I realize the Pats took it a step farther than baseball teams do, at least as far as we know but to me stealing signs is stealing signs. I really don't think the method used to steal said signs is that big of an international incident.

Oh, the Patriots just took it a "step farther". No, they violated NFL rules. I used to respect the Pats a great deal for their propensity to "out-scheme" their opponents considering their mediocre talent base. That's before I knew they had to cheat to do it.


You mentioned the loss of scholarships. Well losing a first rounder is pretty big. That is a player that the Pats would be plugging in as a starter.

Losing a first round pick is trivial versus what they've likely already gained from cheating. At this point, I consider Belichek to have thrown himself under a tiny bus by accepting a 500 K fine versus admitting his QB knew what was going on all along. Tom Brady has never been "smarter" than the average NFL QB. He's just been given information not available to anyone else who's actually followed the rules. Pretty easy to recognize potential holes in defensive sets when you know what's coming.

At this point, the Patriots' standing as a new-age "dynasty" is entirely forfeit given their head coach's quick admission of guilt. That's gone. Completely. Way to go, Bill. You've had average teams who've cheated their way to the top. You don't have to give the rings back, because you really didn't earn them anyway.

The end does not justify the means.

RedsBaron
09-14-2007, 07:58 AM
Belichick should have been suspended, without pay, for at least half the season--maybe the entire 2008 season. He had been previously warned, yet chose to ignore NFL rules. Instead, he got a wrist-slap.

MaineRed
09-14-2007, 08:24 AM
"out-scheme" their opponents considering their mediocre talent base.

Mediocre? Compared to who? The Patriots over the years have had some of the best players at their respective positions. If filming the other team was the reason they were so good, why get rid of Drew Bledsoe? From what you are saying anyone could play QB for Belichick. I'd love to know why BB chose to accept all the Drew-Brady backlash if he could win with anyone.

You don't have to respect the Pats anymore if you don't want to. Respect doesn't mean anything anyways. There isn't one person in that 53 man locker room that cares that StellSD doesn't respect them. But to call their talent mediocre is just ridiculous. There are about two teams that wouldn't trade place with the Pats, the Colts and maybe the Chargers. The rest of the league would KILL to have their "mediocre" talent.

It is also crazy to think that the Pats don't scheme to beat their opponents. From you are saying redszone could show up and put on Pats uniforms and beat the Jets by 24 so long as BB and his camera were present.

Please! To suggest that the Pats just loaf around all weak and then show up on Sundays and cheat to win is nuts. Their talent and their prep have plenty to do with them being who they are. This whole thinking that they have cameragated their way to all their wins makes no sense at all. Why would BB bring in a headcase like Randy Moss if he doesn't need him?

Speaking of Moss, on the play where he outran four Jets who were trying to cover him and then caught the TD pass from Brady, was that a play drawn up by the Pats to counter the defense the Jets were running?

The Jets call a D where they plant four guys on Randy Moss so the Pats call a play where Brady airs it out to Moss? Sounds like the Pats knew just what was coming. Doesn't it.


There's a reason NFL teams can't have cameras pointed at the opponent's sideline during games. Apples and oranges.

And there is a reason you can't do a lot of things in baseball, like throw spit balls or cork your bat. But when people get caught for these things is half their season taken away?

Many of you are coming up with these comments that BB did this or that so he SHOULD be suspended for at least half the year? Where are you getting this? What other sports suspend someone for half a year for "cheating"?

M2 had it right, these comments are pure loathing.

Highlifeman21
09-14-2007, 08:59 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the Pats own multiple 1st round picks for 2008, including theirs?

dabvu2498
09-14-2007, 09:05 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the Pats own multiple 1st round picks for 2008, including theirs?

They do. They have theirs and one obtained from the 49ers.

Fact is, if they don't make they playoffs, this punishment will actually be more punitive.

I am not, nor ever was, in favor of throwing the book at the Pats, but this is pretty weak.

blumj
09-14-2007, 09:08 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the Pats own multiple 1st round picks for 2008, including theirs?
Yes, they traded a 1st in '07 for SF's 1st rounder in '08.

bucksfan2
09-14-2007, 09:36 AM
Mediocre? Compared to who? The Patriots over the years have had some of the best players at their respective positions. If filming the other team was the reason they were so good, why get rid of Drew Bledsoe? From what you are saying anyone could play QB for Belichick. I'd love to know why BB chose to accept all the Drew-Brady backlash if he could win with anyone.


I disagree with this statement. The Pats never have had the best talent. And I will also disagree with the Pats when they say they didn't use the tapes for the current game. I think they did because no coach is going to continue to use the same defensive signals game after game. If on offense you know whats coming or from what direction it is coming you have a great advantage. That makes your OLine better because they don't have to adjust as much. It makes your qb better because he knows where the biltz is coming from and what part of the field will be more open.

The pats have never had great players. They have had good players that have bought into the system. Previously it was thought that they just out smart the other players. They have never had a top notch reciever or running back. Tom Brady ranks up there with the best in the league, but is that tainted now. On defense they have had 2 great players come along during their current run. They are Law, Seymore, McGentis. The likes of Varble, Bruschi, Wilfor, Harrison/Malloy, Sammuel, etc. have always been good players who did their job and did it well. Over the past 5-10 season, during their run, I would say that the pats have been a good team. However they never had a great offense or a great defense. Everyone says it just seemed like they were a step ahead of everyone else. With these recent allegations that have come to light it makes me wonder if the cheated to gain that advantage.

dabvu2498
09-14-2007, 10:11 AM
They have never had a top notch reciever or running back.

Corey Dillon in 2004 had 1600+ yards rushing. That's pretty top notch. Dillon+Maroney last year had 1500 yards combined. Not bad.

The Pats have also been very good at TE throughout the Belichick Era with Ben Watson, Daniel Graham, Christian Fauria, et al. Plus, they've had, arguably, the best kicker in the NFL throughout that time period.

bucksfan2
09-14-2007, 10:33 AM
Corey Dillon in 2004 had 1600+ yards rushing. That's pretty top notch. Dillon+Maroney last year had 1500 yards combined. Not bad.

The Pats have also been very good at TE throughout the Belichick Era with Ben Watson, Daniel Graham, Christian Fauria, et al. Plus, they've had, arguably, the best kicker in the NFL throughout that time period.

Dillon was good but he wasn't great. He had a heck of a season but he wasn't what I would call a top notch back. A few to come to the top of my head are LT, Alexander, Tiki, Portis. Fact of the matter is that Dillon was though so highly of that he was traded prior to the 04 season. I guess my point is that its the system that they run (aided by cheating?) no the players that they have.

Roy Tucker
09-14-2007, 11:44 AM
Color me unimpressed with the league's choice of punishment and disappointed that they seem so willing to drop the death sentence on players who are repeat offenders off the field but unwilling to drop similarly harsh punishment on executives and coaches who are repeat offenders ON the field.

Smells like a heaping load of hypocrisy to me.

That's my take as well. If a player deliberately violates a rule the NFL takes seriously (drugs, DUI, gambling, etc.), that player will miss significant playing time and be deprived of his livlihood.

Belichick violated a rule the NFL supposedly takes seriously. $500K is nothing to sneeze at, but I'm sure Kraft will make it up to him sometime. A #1 draft also is nothing to sneeze at, but the Pats can pretty easily absorb that.

But the NFL could have made a statement saying "we absolutely won't tolerate this" and suspended Belichick for some number of games. That has some teeth in it and would get Belichick's attention.

The fine and draft pick is more of a token thing saying "now, now boys, we can't have this" with a wink and a nod.

Look at what F1 did to McLaren about spying on Ferrari. *That* has some teeth to it.

Chip R
09-14-2007, 12:06 PM
Its my understanding that Goodell works for the owners. Therefor his job depends on what the owners think of his decisions.

I know I cut a lot of this post off but this is the difference in why Goodell was lenient on the Pats and is tough on players. He works for the owners and the NFLPA is weak.

RBA
09-14-2007, 12:11 PM
I wonder if I can guess who the Patriot fans are on this thread? ;)

blumj
09-14-2007, 12:35 PM
I wonder if I can guess who the Patriot fans are on this thread? ;)

Me, for one. I'm trying to be objective about this, and I do not want to condone cheating, but they are my team, and I honestly don't believe they're only good because they've cheated any more than I believe they're only good because of Belichick's schemes. But Belichick brought this on himself, and on my team, calling everything they've achieved into question. Of course, he's also a huge part of the why they've achieved anything at all, but he is also most certainly not the whole reason. That's why I asked before who would want him coaching their team now, because I'm honestly conflicted.

SteelSD
09-14-2007, 12:39 PM
And there is a reason you can't do a lot of things in baseball, like throw spit balls or cork your bat. But when people get caught for these things is half their season taken away?

Many of you are coming up with these comments that BB did this or that so he SHOULD be suspended for at least half the year? Where are you getting this? What other sports suspend someone for half a year for "cheating"?

Major League Baseball, for starters. Test positive for steroids a fourth time and you're gone for a year. Weak, I know. But stronger penalties exist for cheaters....

Test positive once in track and field and it's likely two years. Those track and field athletes are also stripped of all awards and prize money dating back to when the cheating could reasonably first be established. Formula One just fined team McLaren one hundred million dollars and took away all the 2007 points they've earned for spying on Ferrari. That happened yesterday and it killed McLaren's season. Wiped it clean away.

Knowing what play is coming next in football is like 'roiding up your entire team, but even better because now you're making 'em smarter too. In fact, what the Patriots did is very very similar to what McLaren did as they were found with what was described as a "dossier of Ferrari data".

And I'm not suggesting that the Pats forfeit any games, give back any Super Bowl trophies, or have the season wiped away. But when you attempt to gain that kind of severe competitive advantage, the answer isn't money and a draft pick (or two) who may or may not pan out two or three years down the line. You hit 'em where it hurts- brains and talent. You hurt their ability to compete right now. That didn't happen, and it's really too bad because it would have sent a clear message that orchestrated cheating is simply not tolerated.

Belichick and the Pats were found guilty. By his own admission, he's guilty of attempting to gain an unfair competitive advantage. I don't think you quite understand the severe competitive advantage that can be garnered by knowing exactly what play is coming during a game that depends on not knowing exactly what play is coming. In fact, you're trivializing it. The NFL didn't. It's just that they didn't go far enough.

You need to realize that the guy who ended up finally exposing the Pats was former Patriots' assistant (2000-2005) Eric Mangini. From reports, the cameraman was caught as he was trying to enter the Pats' locker room at halftime. You think he just had to take a leak? Here's a former coach outlining how the Pats' cheated:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/2007/09/12/2007-09-12_eric_mangini_exposes_bill_belichicks_spy.html

The person with the camera, in this case, Patriots video assistant Matt Estrella, would tape the coach's hand signals as he sends the defense in. Then the camera person would verbally call out down and distance so the recorder's microphone would pick it up. Then when the tape is analyzed, the hand signals are matched up to down and distance and defensive scheme.

"They would have it all chronicled such as: 4-3 even defense, cover 2, hand to the belt, index finger up," the coach said. "Now if you had a sharp guy in the huddle who was in for every play, you would teach him the signals and he would look over to the sidelines and steal the signals and tell the quarterback."

<end excerpt>

If that's to be believed, then it's not just the coaching staff. The entire team is complicit. Their coach is brazen enough to flout the rules repeatedly and then play the "interpretation" card mere days after receiving a league-wide memo reading, in part:

''Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines...''

Yeah, Bill. Go ahead and "interpret" that. Seems that such an interpretation makes "no" turn into "yes". How convenient. Ditto for an "apology" that amounts to nothing more than "Sorry I got caught. Make sure to change your signal-calling mechanics on the fly, San Diego. See ya' on Sunday! ~Bill"

Pathetic.

Roy Tucker
09-14-2007, 12:50 PM
Suspending Belichick is one way.

Or, from Michael Wilbon's WP column.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/13/AR2007091302606.html



While the coach needs to bear the brunt of the punishment, Robert Kraft, probably the league's most respected owner, should have been hit much harder, too, whether or not he had direct knowledge. He's on the wrong end of what the NCAA used to call "a lack of institutional control."

Usually, fining billionaires means nothing. But look at the $100 million fine Formula One levied against the McLaren team yesterday for spying on and obtaining secret technical documents belonging to its rival, Ferrari. You think McLaren's going to try that again? Had the Patriots been hit with a fine one-tenth of that, $10 million, Kraft would have banned his coaches from videotaping their own sideline. He'd have every piece of electronic equipment in Foxboro trashed.

MaineRed
09-14-2007, 01:20 PM
I wonder if I can guess who the Patriot fans are on this thread? ;)

I don't wonder that at all. I know you can't. Believe it or not, not all non Patriot fans think the way you do.



The person with the camera, in this case, Patriots video assistant Matt Estrella, would tape the coach's hand signals as he sends the defense in. Then the camera person would verbally call out down and distance so the recorder's microphone would pick it up. Then when the tape is analyzed, the hand signals are matched up to down and distance and defensive scheme.

So I guess the season opening 12 play touchdown drive the Pats put together was done with only mediocre talent and no cheating? Pretty impressive.

Chip R
09-14-2007, 01:47 PM
I think it's a shame that Belichek felt he had to resort to this in order to gain a competitive advantage. This and all the other shenanigans that the Pats have been accused of tarnishes the run they have had over the past several years. Now when the Pats are mentioned among the great teams of all time, someone is going to say, "Yeah, but they cheated." It doesn't matter if this was the first time it happened - it wasn't - their legacy is now tainted.

I do wonder if the fans and the media would have been so critical if another team that didn't have as much success as the Pats have had tried this.

Betterread
09-14-2007, 01:48 PM
Jack's Sports Humor


Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Top 10 Excuses By Matt Estrella For Taping the Jets' Sideline

As part of the team’s defense, Estrella has reportedly prepared his top 10 excuses for taping the Jets’ sideline. Here is an exclusive look at his list.

10. I figured Joe Namath would be making creepy passes at a sideline reporter again.
9. Seriously, does Tom Brady really need my help against the Jets?
8. I had politely asked the Jets’ coaches to tell us their defensive strategy, and the bastards said no!
7. No one stopped me, since the home fans were too busy cheering Chad Pennington’s injury.
6. Since I was in Jersey, I was trying to shoot a better ending to The Sopranos.
5. I heard that Miss Teen South Carolina was on the Jets’ sideline.
4. Come on, aren’t you glad someone actually shot some video WITHOUT Peyton Manning?
3. My judgment was impaired after that injection from Rodney Harrison.
2. I needed evidence to expose the Jets’ dog-fighting ring.
AND…

1. It was either that, or making a Bill Belichick sex tape.

blumj
09-14-2007, 02:19 PM
Belichick and the Pats were found guilty. By his own admission, he's guilty of attempting to gain an unfair competitive advantage. I don't think you quite understand the severe competitive advantage that can be garnered by knowing exactly what play is coming during a game that depends on not knowing exactly what play is coming. In fact, you're trivializing it. The NFL didn't. It's just that they didn't go far enough.
Every person who tries to steal an opponent's signals, in any sport, by any means, whether those means are expressly forbidden by the rules of that sport or not, whether brazenly or surreptitiously, is doing the exact same thing: attempting to gain an unfair competitive advantage. There's nothing morally superior about using lesser technology to try to do the same thing, it's all attempting to gain an unfair competitive advantage. And there's no way they could ever really know what plays were coming. I know that's what they were trying to do, anyone who steals signals is trying to do that, it's just that other teams are fully aware that many of their opponents, if not all of them, are trying to do it and take the steps necessary to make sure they can't. I mean, if this was really doable, they'd have never lost a game, and they'd certainly never have lost an important game for lack of a 1st down.

traderumor
09-14-2007, 02:48 PM
Here's the thing I don't get. How did they keep those leaving the organization quiet if this has been going on for quite some time? Certainly this would be something all players and staff would be aware of on either side of the ball because one thing cheaters are is paranoid--they think everyone else is cheating--so they would be wary of their opponents doing the same things they are doing and would warn their players/staff of that.

For example, Lawyer Milloy gets cut late for salary cap reasons and goes to Buffalo and doesn't spill the beans? That makes me wonder about how long it has been going on.

Chip R
09-14-2007, 03:03 PM
Here's the thing I don't get. How did they keep those leaving the organization quiet if this has been going on for quite some time? Certainly this would be something all players and staff would be aware of on either side of the ball because one thing cheaters are is paranoid--they think everyone else is cheating--so they would be wary of their opponents doing the same things they are doing and would warn their players/staff of that.

For example, Lawyer Milloy gets cut late for salary cap reasons and goes to Buffalo and doesn't spill the beans? That makes me wonder about how long it has been going on.

I think for one thing, you don't want to burn bridges. You never know when you get a chance to return. Another reason may be because you don't want to shoot your gun unless you're sure you have enough bullets. You want to make sure you have the goods on someone before you take them down. Otherwise it sounds like sour grapes. Plus, you don't want to sound like a snitch. Maybe your organization is doing it too.

I found a good column by SI writer Paul Zimmerman a.k.a. Dr. Z about this situation

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

KronoRed
09-14-2007, 03:05 PM
For example, Lawyer Milloy gets cut late for salary cap reasons and goes to Buffalo and doesn't spill the beans? That makes me wonder about how long it has been going on.

What Chip said, the Pats most likely aren't the only team doing this, heck I bet more then half the NFL is doing it.

MaineRed
09-14-2007, 04:17 PM
Every person who tries to steal an opponent's signals, in any sport, by any means, whether those means are expressly forbidden by the rules of that sport or not, whether brazenly or surreptitiously, is doing the exact same thing: attempting to gain an unfair competitive advantage. There's nothing morally superior about using lesser technology to try to do the same thing, it's all attempting to gain an unfair competitive advantage. And there's no way they could ever really know what plays were coming. I know that's what they were trying to do, anyone who steals signals is trying to do that, it's just that other teams are fully aware that many of their opponents, if not all of them, are trying to do it and take the steps necessary to make sure they can't. I mean, if this was really doable, they'd have never lost a game, and they'd certainly never have lost an important game for lack of a 1st down.

Best post in this thread.

As I said earlier, if the Pats knew what plays were coming from the Jets D, why did they choose to air it out to Moss when the Jets called for the 4 defenders on Moss defense?

If the Pats have been doing this all along and they always know what D is coming, they wouldn't even need a punter.

traderumor
09-14-2007, 04:20 PM
I think for one thing, you don't want to burn bridges. You never know when you get a chance to return. Another reason may be because you don't want to shoot your gun unless you're sure you have enough bullets. You want to make sure you have the goods on someone before you take them down. Otherwise it sounds like sour grapes. Plus, you don't want to sound like a snitch. Maybe your organization is doing it too.

I found a good column by SI writer Paul Zimmerman a.k.a. Dr. Z about this situation

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

Dr. Z's article made me think about why this is a crime different than good ole stealing signals, and I guess it comes down to the use of technology that allows the Pats to go beyond human capabilities. Sure, you can cite examples of signs stealing in sports with signs, or the ability to humanly devise a system to accurately predict what another team is going to do, but here it is the wrong use of technology. If I can think of a good analogy, they have basically looked at the other player's cards with a video camera in a hand of blackjack and know exactly what to do with their cards after the dealer has taken measures (multiple decks and other precautions to make card counting very, very difficult to humanly impossible, unless its Rainman, of course) to prevent the other side having an unfair advantage in the game. None of Dr. Z's example go past the level of counting cards. The Pats have seen that the opponent is sitting on 15 hoping for the dealer to bust.

traderumor
09-14-2007, 04:27 PM
Best post in this thread.

As I said earlier, if the Pats knew what plays were coming from the Jets D, why did they choose to air it out to Moss when the Jets called for the 4 defenders on Moss defense?

If the Pats have been doing this all along and they always know what D is coming, they wouldn't even need a punter.

You pick and choose the use of the tool to avoid detection and to maximize the return when you do use it.

If they simply ran up and down the field as if they knew exactly what the D was doing (even though they might), it would be too obvious.

The tool might not always be reliable, but is reliable enough to take the risk and give enough advantage to make it profitable.

Those are a few counterpoints off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more.

On a different note, in a matter of weeks, we have had a cheating referee, millionaire and coach. But before we wag our heads too much, how many of us, including myself, are lacking integrity and cheating right now just by typing on this board?

I guess I'll be signing off for now :redface:

NJReds
09-14-2007, 04:43 PM
Just for comparison sake:

Dallas assistant coach Wade Wilson got suspended five games and fined $100,000 this month for using the banned substance HGH to treat impotency, Goodell told him coaches have to be held to a higher standard.

Belichick was found guilty by Judge Goodell of "a calculated and deliberate attempt'' to evade the spirit and letter of the NFL rules.

He was not suspended. So much for "higher standards."

WVRed
09-14-2007, 04:51 PM
As far as losing the draft pick goes, the Patriots already hold SF's first rounder in 2008. You have to figure that pick will be higher than the one the Patriots will hold.

M2
09-14-2007, 04:52 PM
Just for comparison sake:

Dallas assistant coach Wade Wilson got suspended five games and fined $100,000 this month for using the banned substance HGH to treat impotency, Goodell told him coaches have to be held to a higher standard.

Belichick was found guilty by Judge Goodell of "a calculated and deliberate attempt'' to evade the spirit and letter of the NFL rules.

He was not suspended. So much for "higher standards."

You're forgetting something. The Patriots are good and the Cowboys are bad.

Patriot Act, man. You don't have to do righteous things. You just have to be righteous.

Yachtzee
09-14-2007, 05:21 PM
Dr. Z's article made me think about why this is a crime different than good ole stealing signals, and I guess it comes down to the use of technology that allows the Pats to go beyond human capabilities. Sure, you can cite examples of signs stealing in sports with signs, or the ability to humanly devise a system to accurately predict what another team is going to do, but here it is the wrong use of technology. If I can think of a good analogy, they have basically looked at the other player's cards with a video camera in a hand of blackjack and know exactly what to do with their cards after the dealer has taken measures (multiple decks and other precautions to make card counting very, very difficult to humanly impossible, unless its Rainman, of course) to prevent the other side having an unfair advantage in the game. None of Dr. Z's example go past the level of counting cards. The Pats have seen that the opponent is sitting on 15 hoping for the dealer to bust.

I liken it to baseball teams stealing signs using a guy with a video camera in the outfield. Stealing signs by paying attention when the catcher drops his guard is one thing, stealing them using a centerfield camera is dirty pool. What makes it more damning is that, in baseball there are fewer signs needed, so it's easier change the signals if they get stolen. There are so many signals involved in football that signal stealing is a much bigger deal. A team can't just change their entire defensive signals in the middle of a game.

I suspect that the video is used to crack the code and then certain coaches and/or players are told what signals to look for and what they mean. I could imagine they have someone breaking down the signals from the first quarter during the second quarter and relaying the results to the sideline, so that the coaches can start looking for certain signals. By halftime, they might have most of the common play signals cracked. If it's a division rival, you have the added bonus that you play them again, so you already know what they use. Then, if they find out, as Dr. Z's sources say, the team has to spend the week coming up with new signals when they could be spending that time preparing the team for the game.

Ltlabner
09-14-2007, 05:37 PM
I must say, as someone who doesn't give a rip about Football in any shape form or fashion, it's intresting to read everybodies take on what has transpired.

I will say this however, I know what people are saying when they claim $500,000 is nothing to a millionare. Until they are said millionare and have to write the check. It's always easy to spend/give away other people's money. (again, I know what they are saying...it's a drop in the bucket compared to his bank account).

Anyway, please resume bickering. :)

MaineRed
09-14-2007, 06:16 PM
Here's a thought, the commish thinks what Wade Wilson did is worse than what Belichick did?

Everyone is just assuming that the Pats knew exactly what was coming on every play. Heck some are even willing to go back 5 or 6 years and assume they've know what is coming on every play in every game since Belichick got there. It is a total guess.

Has there been any concrete proof that this scheme was actually utilized and for how many plays it was used for? All I've heard is what is on the tape. I haven't heard anything other than opinions on what effect the tape had.

Maybe that is why the penalty was what it was. Maybe they were taping the other coaches. But maybe the info wasn't used as much as people think or perhaps not at all. Not saying this is the case, just that I have no idea one way or another. Perhaps that is why the penalty was what it was.

I really think people are giving the Pats way too much credit to assume that they can figure out what the Jets are running, relay the info to the person who then has to compute the right play to be used to beat whatever defense has been called. Is there enough time between plays to figure all that out and then get the right personnel on the field without looking like you can't figure out what play to run every time? At some point wouldn't we catch on to the fact that the Pats destroy everyone but yet never seem to have the right guys on the field, are always scrambling around at the last minute? Seems like they would lead the league in delay of game trying to do so much in such short period of time. And Brady autibles less than half as much as Peyton does.

Hmmmmmmm.

redsfanmia
09-14-2007, 08:58 PM
And Brady autibles less than half as much as Peyton does.

Hmmmmmmm.

Are you trying to say the Colts cheat as well?

Yachtzee
09-14-2007, 09:57 PM
Are you trying to say the Colts cheat as well?

Didn't the Colts get caught pumping in extra crowd noise through the PA system? Not quite the same level of cheating, but cheating just the same.

SteelSD
09-15-2007, 01:01 AM
Every person who tries to steal an opponent's signals, in any sport, by any means, whether those means are expressly forbidden by the rules of that sport or not, whether brazenly or surreptitiously, is doing the exact same thing: attempting to gain an unfair competitive advantage. There's nothing morally superior about using lesser technology to try to do the same thing, it's all attempting to gain an unfair competitive advantage.

No to infinity. Seeing real-time visual cues with the naked eye is an accepted risk in any sport. Stealing signs that way may result in an advantage, but that's an understood risk and there is NO rule preventing that sort of behavior. If someone can stand across a football field and eyball signals, match them up with offensive or defensive play calling, and then provide that information to their team, then that's the opponent's fault. Everyone has the same access to that data. Football teams consistently analyze field shots of plays in-game in an effort to understand sets, matchups, and propensities. Again, everyone has access to that data.

What New England has done, apparently for years, is way WAY beyond that. It's quite clear that Bill Belichick felt entitled to prohibited information. His actions represent one of the most profound acts of cheating in any sport ever and it's likely resulted in past division, playoff, and Super Bowl wins the Pats simply wouldn't have had they played within the rules of the game. It was so wrong that one of Belichick's former assistants (Mangini) who worked with him from 1997 to 2005 was compelled to expose the blatant cheating. If my favorite team was caught doing that, I'd be supporting the same penalties I've suggested earlier.

Here's what Roger Goodell wrote in his letter to the Patriots:

http://www.courant.com/sports/football/hc-patriots0914.artsep14,0,229127.story?coll=hc_tab01 _layout

"This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid longstanding rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field,"

His letter to a team that complained about someone eyeballing their defensive schemes and stealing their signals sans camera or binoculars while being over 50 yards away from the signal caller would likely read:

You're stupid. Don't bother me again.

And here's Belichick in his "apology":

"My interpretation of a rule in the Constitution and Bylaws was incorrect."

This is what NFL policy says:

The NFL policy states that "no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game" and that all video shooting locations for coaching purposes "must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

Here's what the September 6, 2006 (I was wrong about the recency) reminder memo to NFL head coaches and GM's said:

"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."

So, Bill had a camera guy on the field. Check. And that guy was headed to the locker room prior to being detained. Check. Wow. That's one heck of a misinterpretation.


And there's no way they could ever really know what plays were coming. I know that's what they were trying to do, anyone who steals signals is trying to do that, it's just that other teams are fully aware that many of their opponents, if not all of them, are trying to do it and take the steps necessary to make sure they can't. I mean, if this was really doable, they'd have never lost a game, and they'd certainly never have lost an important game for lack of a 1st down.

They couldn't know what plays were coming? C'mon. The entire exercise was to twist probability to the Pats via illegal means. The whole "they'd never have lost a game" argument falls flat as the Pats would still need to be able to execute. This is a team famous for halftime adjustments. At minimum, cheating head coach with mediocre talent tells cameraman to head to the locker room at halftime with all sorts of prohibited information. Head coach disseminates information to players. Team comes out of halftime with a competitive advantage not available to the opponent.

Figure it out.

Hoosier Red
09-15-2007, 01:27 AM
Didn't the Colts get caught pumping in extra crowd noise through the PA system? Not quite the same level of cheating, but cheating just the same.

Pittsburgh accused them of that, but it was a pretty laughable whiny excuse.
And no, the league did not catch them at it.

gonelong
09-15-2007, 03:21 AM
I will say this however, I know what people are saying when they claim $500,000 is nothing to a millionare. Until they are said millionare and have to write the check. It's always easy to spend/give away other people's money. (again, I know what they are saying...it's a drop in the bucket compared to his bank account).

Agreed, I bet his wife doesn't think it's insignificant. ;)

GL

traderumor
09-15-2007, 09:53 AM
One thing it does is make the play card mouth hiding routine not look quite so unwarranted. I would imagine the Pats would have Marlee Matlin on the sideline every week shooting video and reading lips.

redsfanmia
09-15-2007, 03:41 PM
Didn't the Colts get caught pumping in extra crowd noise through the PA system? Not quite the same level of cheating, but cheating just the same.

Actually they were just accusations and weak ones at that. The dome is so loud I cant see how anyone could distinquish between real noise and "piped in noise".

RedsBaron
09-16-2007, 08:26 AM
What New England has done, apparently for years, is way WAY beyond that. It's quite clear that Bill Belichick felt entitled to prohibited information. His actions represent one of the most profound acts of cheating in any sport ever and it's likely resulted in past division, playoff, and Super Bowl wins the Pats simply wouldn't have had they played within the rules of the game. It was so wrong that one of Belichick's former assistants (Mangini) who worked with him from 1997 to 2005 was compelled to expose the blatant cheating. If my favorite team was caught doing that, I'd be supporting the same penalties I've suggested earlier.



Good post. Solely from a football standpoint, what Belichick did is far worse than any of the sins of Michael Vick, Chris Henry, et al. Vick's mistreatment of dogs was disgusting and illegal, but the Falcons gained no improper competitive advantage from Vick's activities.
Belichick intentionally broke the rules of the game, repeatedly, and his misconduct calls into question the legitimacy of Super Bowl championships. He has attacked the integrity of the results on the field.
Given the suspensions that the NFL has handed out to players for off-the-field misconduct that did not affect the integrity of the on-the-field results, how can the NFL justify the wrist slap given to Belichick? The more that I have thought about this, the more I believe that Belichick should have received a suspension for a full NFL season.

GAC
09-16-2007, 09:35 AM
how can the NFL justify the wrist slap given to Belichick? The more that I have thought about this, the more I believe that Belichick should have received a suspension for a full NFL season.

I agree; but the NFL is far more concerned about protecting themselves as a whole. They're treating it like the MLB heirarchy would do - slap them on the wrist, act outraged that something like this would occur (like steroids), and hope it's enough to make it go away.

MaineRed
09-16-2007, 09:37 AM
For anyone shocked by this story, what do you think ALL of those coaches are doing when they put the clipboard up in front of their mouth before they talk?

Are all of them hiding their words from Bill Belichick?

Coaches are aware that others may be watching to gain an edge. They are so paranoid that they cover their face because they think someone with lip reading skills might be watching and immedietly be able to relay to their team what play is coming. And they've been doing it forever.

I don't see how what Mangini did is honorable. If the guy had a problem with it and knew about it going on in New England when he was there, why didn't he speak up then? If he is the one who turned the Pats in because he was part of the same thing in New England, why didn't he come clean and hand over HIS Super Bowl rings? Some of you want the league to take away Belichicks.

If Mangini is responsible for this based on his knowledge from New England (which we don't know btw) then he is no different than Jose Canseco at this point, wating to speak up about the roids until it would benefit him to do so.

MaineRed
09-16-2007, 09:44 AM
I agree; but the NFL is far more concerned about protecting themselves as a whole. They're treating it like the MLB heirarchy would do - slap them on the wrist, act outraged that something like this would occur (like steroids), and hope it's enough to make it go away.


Its not a slap on the wrist. A first round pick is huge. People act like it is no big deal because they have another first rounder. Well they had to trade their first rounder last year to get ahold of it. They were expecting to go into the offseason with two first round picks and now they only have one. It is a big deal. The fact that the Patriots have a good team doesn't change that. It would have been a significant player added to their team. Say what you want about BB, he knows how to draft value. A late first rounder is not a throwaway.

redsfanmia
09-16-2007, 11:12 AM
Its not a slap on the wrist. A first round pick is huge. People act like it is no big deal because they have another first rounder. Well they had to trade their first rounder last year to get ahold of it. They were expecting to go into the offseason with two first round picks and now they only have one. It is a big deal. The fact that the Patriots have a good team doesn't change that. It would have been a significant player added to their team. Say what you want about BB, he knows how to draft value. A late first rounder is not a throwaway.

I take it you must be a Patriot fan. Its a slap on the wrist, they still have a first rounder and the Hoodie didnt even get suspended, like he should have.

MaineRed
09-16-2007, 11:22 AM
I've said numerous times that I am NOT a Patriots fan. Been with the 49ers since I was 10. Well over 30 now. I have no Patriot blood in my body. But even if I was a Pats fan, what difference does it make? Are you saying that fans of teams shouldn't discuss issues about their team? Or that folks might be a little less bitter about this if it was there own team?

As I said, just because they have another first rounder doesn't make it any less of a hit. They had to give up a first rounder to get that OTHER first rounder. They still lost a pick, in the first round no matter how you want to spin it.

And lets remember, the Pats didn't win the last Super Bowl, the Colts did, largely by beating the Pats. So these suggestions that the Pats are untouchable beacuse of the cheating and the thoughts that they don't need that first rounder are quite overstated. First rounders are huge in this league, even the ones down in the 20s. To lose one is big.

cincinnati chili
09-16-2007, 06:24 PM
Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I don't blame Mangini for ratting out Belichick. It's been reported that, despite a decade of loyal service to Belichick, Belichick treated him like crap from the minute he interviewed with the Jets:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070107/news_1s7patriots.html

Circumstantial evidence suggests that Belichick deserved what he's getting.

TeamSelig
09-16-2007, 07:15 PM
Someone investigate the Browns.

;)

MaineRed
09-16-2007, 08:12 PM
Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I don't blame Mangini for ratting out Belichick. It's been reported that, despite a decade of loyal service to Belichick, Belichick treated him like crap from the minute he interviewed with the Jets:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070107/news_1s7patriots.html

Circumstantial evidence suggests that Belichick deserved what he's getting.

So Belichick being a jerk makes him more deserving of the wrath of the NFL than the sweetheart Mangini?

I had a feeling the distaste for Belichick was what was driving this thread. Guess I was right.

If it was the cheating that people were upset with, they'd be just as upset with Mangini if he was knowingly taking part in it all these years when he was in New England.

If Mangini turned in the Pats, that is cheap, no matter what BB has done to him. Its so funny how much two wrongs not equalling a right is preached in this country but as soon as something like this arises it is not only OK'd but encouraged to be the one responsible for the second wrong, so much as you get your revenge.

Perhaps Mangini has something to learn about loyalty as well. If he is so worried about the integrity of the game, he would have spoken up while in New England. As I said, it is Jose Canseco all over again.

traderumor
09-16-2007, 09:38 PM
So Belichick being a jerk makes him more deserving of the wrath of the NFL than the sweetheart Mangini?

I had a feeling the distaste for Belichick was what was driving this thread. Guess I was right.

If it was the cheating that people were upset with, they'd be just as upset with Mangini if he was knowingly taking part in it all these years when he was in New England.

If Mangini turned in the Pats, that is cheap, no matter what BB has done to him. Its so funny how much two wrongs not equalling a right is preached in this country but as soon as something like this arises it is not only OK'd but encouraged to be the one responsible for the second wrong, so much as you get your revenge.

Perhaps Mangini has something to learn about loyalty as well. If he is so worried about the integrity of the game, he would have spoken up while in New England. As I said, it is Jose Canseco all over again.

How laughable. If Bobby Knight were caught committing recruiting violations, would I not be able to make a comment about his cheating because I also do not like him personally? What is driving this thread is some intelligent discussions on cheating with a few Pats fans attempting to minimize the seriousness of the violations.

WMR
09-16-2007, 11:23 PM
So Belichick being a jerk makes him more deserving of the wrath of the NFL than the sweetheart Mangini?

I had a feeling the distaste for Belichick was what was driving this thread. Guess I was right.

If it was the cheating that people were upset with, they'd be just as upset with Mangini if he was knowingly taking part in it all these years when he was in New England.

If Mangini turned in the Pats, that is cheap, no matter what BB has done to him. Its so funny how much two wrongs not equalling a right is preached in this country but as soon as something like this arises it is not only OK'd but encouraged to be the one responsible for the second wrong, so much as you get your revenge.

Perhaps Mangini has something to learn about loyalty as well. If he is so worried about the integrity of the game, he would have spoken up while in New England. As I said, it is Jose Canseco all over again.

You sound like one of those rappers telling people to "stop snitchin'."

MaineRed
09-17-2007, 07:47 AM
How laughable. If Bobby Knight were caught committing recruiting violations, would I not be able to make a comment about his cheating because I also do not like him personally? What is driving this thread is some intelligent discussions on cheating with a few Pats fans attempting to minimize the seriousness of the violations.

No, the comparison is saying that Coach K doesn't deserve the same penalty because he is a nicer guy than Coach Knight. That is not how it should be judged.

I'm also not saying don't snitch. Just do it while you are on the staff, not after you leave and have to coach against it.

Anyways, another impressive win for that team with all the mediocre talent.

MaineRed
09-17-2007, 07:50 AM
What is driving this thread is some intelligent discussions on cheating with a few Pats fans attempting to minimize the seriousness of the violations.

Don't see any Pat fans arguing anything. What I see is a lot of jealous Brown and Bengal fans who would not have the same take if it were their coaches who were caught doing this.

TeamSelig
09-17-2007, 09:20 AM
I don't understand the point in allowing someone to cheat. Rat him out. He shouldn't have been doing it in the first place. It's a thing called ethics. I don't see a "brotherhood" between former co-workers...

MaineRed
09-17-2007, 10:10 AM
Mangini is coach of the Jets and he doesn't want the Pats cheating agianst him.

But when Mangini was coach for the Pats it was OK to cheat against the Jets?

That is my point. Was Mangini being ethical if he was knowingly taking part in the same thing while with the Pats? And if he knew where are the cries for him to be suspended?

The commish said last night that the penalty wasn't harsher because the "cheating" did not have any outcome on the game.

The commish also argued heavily that losing a first round pick is HUGE and should be a deterent for other teams not to do this.

Chip R
09-17-2007, 10:31 AM
The commish said last night that the penalty wasn't harsher because the "cheating" did not have any outcome on the game.


That's a ridiculous statement to make. He's basically saying the higher the score, the lighter the punishment. What if the Pats had hung 50 on the Jets? Would he have just fined them?


The commish also argued heavily that losing a first round pick is HUGE and should be a deterent for other teams not to do this.


For other teams that don't have an extra 1st round pick. Odds are the Niners will finish with a worse record than NE. So NE will get a higher first round pick. Granted, it's not two picks but it's better than the one they would have had without the trade and it's better than nothing.

blumj
09-17-2007, 11:05 AM
That's a ridiculous statement to make. He's basically saying the higher the score, the lighter the punishment. What if the Pats had hung 50 on the Jets? Would he have just fined them?




For other teams that don't have an extra 1st round pick. Odds are the Niners will finish with a worse record than NE. So NE will get a higher first round pick. Granted, it's not two picks but it's better than the one they would have had without the trade and it's better than nothing.
So they're supposed to make the penalty 2 first round picks just because the team that got caught happens to have 2 next year? What if they had none, should the penalty be lower? That makes no sense. You can say the penalty isn't harsh enough, but you can't honestly believe that this sort of thing should be decided based on the circumstances of the team at the time. You take away what you believe is the appropriate value. Maybe, to some extent, you determine the amount of a fine based partly on someone's salary, but you don't determine it on the basis of how much money they actually have saved up, do you? The guy who spends all his money gets a lower fine than the guy who comes from a wealthy family?

And the reason the NFL determined that the tape had no effect on the Jets game is because the Pats never had it, Estrella was detained by Jets security very early in the game.

Chip R
09-17-2007, 11:25 AM
So they're supposed to make the penalty 2 first round picks just because the team that got caught happens to have 2 next year? What if they had none, should the penalty be lower? That makes no sense. You can say the penalty isn't harsh enough, but you can't honestly believe that this sort of thing should be decided based on the circumstances of the team at the time. You take away what you believe is the appropriate value. Maybe, to some extent, you determine the amount of a fine based partly on someone's salary, but you don't determine it on the basis of how much money they actually have saved up, do you? The guy who spends all his money gets a lower fine than the guy who comes from a wealthy family?

And the reason the NFL determined that the tape had no effect on the Jets game is because the Pats never had it, Estrella was detained by Jets security very early in the game.


What I'm saying is that the score of the game should be irrelevant in deciding punishment.

MaineRed
09-17-2007, 12:46 PM
For other teams that don't have an extra 1st round pick. Odds are the Niners will finish with a worse record than NE. So NE will get a higher first round pick. Granted, it's not two picks but it's better than the one they would have had without the trade and it's better than nothing.

Its an EXTRA first round pick in THIS draft, it is NOT an extra first round pick. The Pats had to give up their 06 first rounder to get the Niners first rounder.

You make it sound like the NFL took away the Pats pick but then gave them the Niners pick to compensate.

I really don't get the position that the penalty would be OK if the Pats had just made their 06 pick, instead of trading it to the Niners for their 07 and then had their own pick for 07 taken away.

Do you not realize how incredibly stupid that sounds? Its better than nothing? What is that supposed to mean? It is the loss of a first round pick. The next team that gets caught doing this will also lose a first round pick, even if they don't have another one.

By the way, this is the harshest penalthy ever assesed to an NFL TEAM.


And the reason the NFL determined that the tape had no effect on the Jets game is because the Pats never had it, Estrella was detained by Jets security very early in the game.

Thank you. Like the commish said, it had no outcome on the game. But it was obviously (at least to those of us who understand the value of first round picks) taken seriously.

SteelSD
09-17-2007, 12:46 PM
Mangini is coach of the Jets and he doesn't want the Pats cheating agianst him.

But when Mangini was coach for the Pats it was OK to cheat against the Jets?

That is my point. Was Mangini being ethical if he was knowingly taking part in the same thing while with the Pats? And if he knew where are the cries for him to be suspended?

That's irrelevant to the discussion. Eric Mangini's moral fiber has nothing to do with the fact that Bill Belichick got caught cheating. I think it says something about Belichick's character (or lack thereof) that a former assistant who was apparently close with Belichick at one time was the guy to catch him, but that's neither here nor there.

Secondly, as quickly as Belichick burned that relationship when Mangini interviewed for the Jets' HC job, what do you think would have happened to Mangini had he exposed Belichick's cheating while the Patriots' Head Coach held Mangini's career in his hands? Is it so hard to understand why Mangini may have just put up with it long enough to get out from under Belichick's thumb prior to exposing the Patriots' blatant rulebreaking?

I'm sorry, but you've been all over the place with your attempts to deflect blame and marginalize Belichick's cheating. You've gone from "Everyone's doing it" (wrong) to "No sport harshly penalizes cheating" (wrong) to "Mangini is just as bad" (red herring). Now you're in the place where you call those who disagree with you "jealous"? C'mon.

I'm a Steelers fan. Why in the world would I ever, EVER be "jealous" of the New England Patriots? Please.

blumj
09-17-2007, 01:00 PM
What I'm saying is that the score of the game should be irrelevant in deciding punishment.

Yeah, I kind of missed the point the first time around, unless he was referring to a possible forfeit and/or compensation for the Jets. They broke NFL rules in an attempt to cheat, the penalty should be the same for any team that does the same regardless of whether or not the cheating itself was achieved or successful.

MaineRed
09-17-2007, 01:05 PM
Is it so hard to understand why Mangini may have just put up with it long enough to get out from under Belichick's thumb prior to exposing the Patriots' blatant rulebreaking?

Didn't Mangini work with Belichick for ten years? Just long enough to get out from under his thumb? Is Belichick running the Pats or the former Soviet Union? Ten years is just long enough to get out from under his thumb? I am saying Mangini is just as bad if he was taking part in this in New Engalnd. That is the definition of being just as bad. When one person does something bad and then someone else does the same thing, they are just as bad.

This was a precedent setting ruling by the NFL. No team had ever been hit as hard. Guys who get suspended are suspended because they break the law, not just NFL rules. The commish made that clear when explaining why Wade Wilson was suspended for 5 games for having HGH. It is against the law to have HGH. Belichick broke NFL rules, not the law.

I do think people are jealous of the Pats. Not everyone in this thread is a Steeler fan but I wouldn't expect you to realzie that. Most of these folks are long suffering Bengals and Browns fans and I do think a good number of them harbor ill feelings towards either the Pats or Belichick. Mostly due to winning but with Brown fans it could be more to do with BB himself.

I think people saw this as their chance to knock the Pats down a notch. Fans hate the team that is winning and that team has been the Pats. Only Niner fans like me, Steeler fans like yourself and Cowboy fans can fall back on the my team has a better history than yours argument with a Patriots fan. Imagine yourself as a Brown fan. You don't think you'd be jealous of the Pats?

Come on!

Chip R
09-17-2007, 01:11 PM
Its an EXTRA first round pick in THIS draft, it is NOT an extra first round pick. The Pats had to give up their 06 first rounder to get the Niners first rounder.

You make it sound like the NFL took away the Pats pick but then gave them the Niners pick to compensate.



That's not what I said at all. Before all this came down they had their 1st round pick and the Niners pick. Now they only have the Niners pick. Is that correct?

blumj
09-17-2007, 01:20 PM
That's not what I said at all. Before all this came down they had their 1st round pick and the Niners pick. Now they only have the Niners pick. Is that correct?
Yes, that's correct. They traded Deion Branch for Seattle's '07 1st round pick last year, used that on Brandon Meriweather, then traded their own 1st round pick for San Fran's '08 1st round pick.

MaineRed
09-17-2007, 01:29 PM
Here is what you said:


For other teams that don't have an extra 1st round pick. Odds are the Niners will finish with a worse record than NE. So NE will get a higher first round pick. Granted, it's not two picks but it's better than the one they would have had without the trade and it's better than nothing.

Four sentences that make no sense whatsoever.

Other teams don't matter. If Andy Reid gets caught tonight doing the same thing, the Eagles will lose their first rounder. It won't be more of a penalty because they don't have another pick. It will be the same as the Pats, the loss of a first round pick. Just like the Pats the Eagles had a 2006 first round pick at some point. I'm not sure what they did with it but I'm sure they either made a pick or traded it for someone else. The Pats took their 06 pick and traded it to San Fran. Everything is equal.

Do you understand what I am saying? A second first round pick doesn't hold less value than it normally would when you have to give up the previous years pick to put yourself in position to have two picks.

The 49ers record has nothing to do with this either. The Pats acquired that pick fair and square. The fact that it will probably be better than the pick owned by the Pats shouldn't matter. Its the Pats pick that was taken away, not the highest pick they happen to own when it comes time to draft.

And I really don't get the, "its better than nothing" comment.

If that is your take on things, how about accepting the penalty the commish gave BB and moving on? Afterall the punishment was "better than nothing", Chip.

cincinnati chili
09-17-2007, 02:13 PM
If Mangini had been a whistleblower as an underling at the Patriots, he might have never worked in football again.

It's very easy for us to say he should have ratted out the Patriots while he was there. But how many of us would risk our careers, and be a whisleblower, knowing that nobody is being physically harmed by our boss's actions?

This is distinguishable, I think, from whistleblowers who report legitimate toxic tort conduct.

Chip R
09-17-2007, 02:36 PM
Here is what you said:



Four sentences that make no sense whatsoever.

Other teams don't matter. If Andy Reid gets caught tonight doing the same thing, the Eagles will lose their first rounder. It won't be more of a penalty because they don't have another pick. It will be the same as the Pats, the loss of a first round pick. Just like the Pats the Eagles had a 2006 first round pick at some point. I'm not sure what they did with it but I'm sure they either made a pick or traded it for someone else. The Pats took their 06 pick and traded it to San Fran. Everything is equal.

Do you understand what I am saying? A second first round pick doesn't hold less value than it normally would when you have to give up the previous years pick to put yourself in position to have two picks.

The 49ers record has nothing to do with this either. The Pats acquired that pick fair and square. The fact that it will probably be better than the pick owned by the Pats shouldn't matter. Its the Pats pick that was taken away, not the highest pick they happen to own when it comes time to draft.

And I really don't get the, "its better than nothing" comment.

If that is your take on things, how about accepting the penalty the commish gave BB and moving on? Afterall the punishment was "better than nothing", Chip.


It's simple math. 2 is better than 1 and 1 is better than none. The Pats had 2 1st round picks. Theirs and the Niners. Now they only have the Niners. Basically what happened is that the Pats paid the NFL $250K - or $750K if you want to count Belichek's fine - to move up however many spots in the draft. I'm sure a lot of teams would pay that to move up a few slots in the draft.

If another team has 2 or more 1st round picks why not do the camera thing? After all, you'll only lose 1 of those picks. If another team has only the one, they would be less likely to do something like that. That's all I was saying. If you are going to penalize someone and want them not to do it again, you don't give them a slap on the wrist, you cut off a finger or two.If the NFL were serious about punishing the Pats, they would take away not only the Pats pick but the one they got from the Niners too. Other teams see that the penalty for spying like that is the loss of all 1st round picks, chances are they aren't going to do that.

MaineRed
09-17-2007, 02:59 PM
I don't see why you think a team that acquires a second first round pick should be penalized more than someone who doesn't.



If another team has 2 or more 1st round picks why not do the camera thing? After all, you'll only lose 1 of those picks.

WHY? Because like I've been trying to tell you, teams value those picks and spend a lot, in this case the previous years number one, to get ahold of those additional picks.

Do the camera thing if you have two first round picks because you'll still have one left?

That is like saying the Reds should not worry about blowing out Arroyos arm because they still have Harang. Afterall, one good pitcher is better than none, eh Chip?

If some situation arises in baseball where a team has a pitcher suspended, I don't think we should be looking to penalize the team with the best pitching staff more than we would an ordinary team.

M2
09-17-2007, 03:12 PM
A few thoughts:

- It seems pretty clear this was calculated on Mangini's part. He knew how to snare the Pats and he timed it to elicit the maximum penalty. Good for him. Smart move.

- Bellichick's a thorough guy, what makes anyone think he's only got one camera?

- Would Mangini have complained about Bellichick's taping practices unless he came up with a better system?

- If you're going to do something in the open, like send hand or verbal signals, then you'd better send them in code so the opposition can't know exactly what you're doing.

- Did anyone honestly expect a harsher penalty than the one that got handed down?

- Bellichick must be a Jesse Ventura fan: "Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat."

Chip R
09-17-2007, 04:54 PM
I think some of us saw this coming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFfobQftP5k

cincinnati chili
09-17-2007, 05:17 PM
I think some of us saw this coming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFfobQftP5k

Your guy was pretty good.

This one isn't as good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rcA7Q76K6E&NR=1

RFS62
09-17-2007, 05:35 PM
I think some of us saw this coming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFfobQftP5k



That is awesome

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


This one is not bad, either

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=758QP8mS9eY&mode=related&search=

TeamSelig
09-17-2007, 06:11 PM
LOL!

hilarious

GoReds33
09-17-2007, 06:46 PM
I think some of us saw this coming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFfobQftP5kLeave Brittany alone was better. This was hilarious though.:)

SteelSD
09-17-2007, 08:46 PM
Didn't Mangini work with Belichick for ten years? Just long enough to get out from under his thumb? Is Belichick running the Pats or the former Soviet Union? Ten years is just long enough to get out from under his thumb?

"Working with" is most certainly not the same thing as "working for", particularly when your boss is an NFL head coach. Mangini spent only five seasons working for Belichick the Head Coach. In comparison, Bill Cowher worked for seven seasons under Marty Shottenheimer before getting his shot at the Head Coaching job in Pittsburgh.


I am saying Mangini is just as bad if he was taking part in this in New Engalnd. That is the definition of being just as bad. When one person does something bad and then someone else does the same thing, they are just as bad.

As Chili already noted, if Mangini had outed Belichick while working for him, Mangini's career would have likely been over. We're talking about a guy (Mangini) who started his career as a ball boy. Yes, a ball boy. I think you have to be pretty naive if you think a guy with those humble beginnings was willing to potentially throw his career away in order to right a wrong. Instead, Mangini waited until he gained a position of power himself and busted Belichick.

You may not understand the difference, but it's huge.


This was a precedent setting ruling by the NFL. No team had ever been hit as hard. Guys who get suspended are suspended because they break the law, not just NFL rules. The commish made that clear when explaining why Wade Wilson was suspended for 5 games for having HGH. It is against the law to have HGH. Belichick broke NFL rules, not the law.

The Head Coach of the NFL golden boys got caught cheating. You obviously haven't researched the Wade Wilson suspension or you'd understand that Wilson had prescriptions for anything he received and put the purchases on his credit card. Wilson's mistake was ignorance. That's not an excuse, but Wilson's infraction isn't even in the same galaxy with what Bill Belichick did. Unfortunately, Goodell thinks it's in the same county.


I do think people are jealous of the Pats. Not everyone in this thread is a Steeler fan but I wouldn't expect you to realzie that. Most of these folks are long suffering Bengals and Browns fans and I do think a good number of them harbor ill feelings towards either the Pats or Belichick. Mostly due to winning but with Brown fans it could be more to do with BB himself.

I don't realize that Redszone isn't Steelers Central? Had me fooled.


I think people saw this as their chance to knock the Pats down a notch. Fans hate the team that is winning and that team has been the Pats. Only Niner fans like me, Steeler fans like yourself and Cowboy fans can fall back on the my team has a better history than yours argument with a Patriots fan. Imagine yourself as a Brown fan. You don't think you'd be jealous of the Pats?

No. I'd be ticked off at my own team for not being able to emulate the success of top-tier franchises. But jealous? No. I root for the Reds. Does that automatically make me jealous of the Yankees? No. Of course not. I admire them. Kinda' how I used to admire the New England Patriots.

MaineRed
09-17-2007, 10:00 PM
So it was OK for Mangini to support cheating so long as it furthered his career? I don't get how you can be so extreme when it comes to the act of cheating but then excuse those who knowingly took part in the cheating. Isn't Belichick trying to advance himself the same way Mangini was?

What I took exception with was the use of the word ethical. Mangini hasn't done anything ethical. In fact Brian Billick, the coach of the Ravens has accused the Jets of cheating in yesterday's game. And like I mentioned earlier, it has been reported that Mangini left the Pats with a Pats playbok in tow. Real freaking ethical.



You obviously haven't researched the Wade Wilson suspension or you'd understand that Wilson had prescriptions for anything he received and put the purchases on his credit card.

This is EXACTLY what Goodell said. But you probably know more than the NFL commish so I don't know why I am bothering:

"First of all, I'm not going to get into the personal situations of why Wade was taking it, but that's not an accurate point. Second of all, Wade Wilson was involved in a criminal activity. It was against the law. There's a very clear policy for our clubs and our players that if you violate that, it's a four-game suspension. I suspended him for five games because I think a coach should be held to a higher standard. That is why I approached it that way. They all understand the rules, and I think we did what was appropriate in Wade Wilson's case, and I'm comfortable with that."

Looks like it is you who needs help in the research department.


No. I'd be ticked off at my own team for not being able to emulate the success of top-tier franchises. But jealous? No. I root for the Reds. Does that automatically make me jealous of the Yankees? No. Of course not. I admire them. Kinda' how I used to admire the New England Patriots.

Great, you told me how YOU feel. But guess what, there are others out there who may not have the same exact feeling that you do. People have minds of their own. This is why I joked about the Steelers. You seem to live in this world where you think everyone thinks the way you do. Well they don't. Not everyone anyway. You jump down my throat because you aren't jealous of the Yankees. Well guess what, some people ARE jealous of the Yankees. I didn't say everyone was and I certainly didn't say you were, just that SOME are.

MaineRed
09-17-2007, 10:12 PM
The Pats had 2 1st round picks. Theirs and the Niners. Now they only have the Niners. Basically what happened is that the Pats paid the NFL $250K - or $750K if you want to count Belichek's fine - to move up however many spots in the draft.

This isn't what happened at all, not even close in fact.

If you want to continue to look at things through your extremely foggy glasses then you can look at this way, the Pats paid 750,000 for the right to lose their draft pick. Is that simple enough for you Chip? They didn't move in the draft for that price, they lost their pick for that price. Nothing more, nothing less. The Niners pick has nothing to do with this. Your one is better than none theory is certainly true but incredibly short sighted. Off the charts even.

You don't get ahold of first round picks and then say to yourself, what stupid act can we commit so the commish will take one away? We've got another one so losing one won't matter. That has yet to be said, by anyone.

Slyder
09-17-2007, 11:26 PM
Okay, let me ask you guys a serious question: if Belichick suddenly became available, would you want your team to hire him? Knowing everything you know now, would you want to root for a team that he coached?

Let me make myself clear... Hell No. The only reason he is where he is, is because the NFL turned a blind eye to previous reports, and allowed double standard and out and out bs that built everything that the Pats accomplished. He's an overrated coach on an overrated team with accomplishments that they received by theft and general mugging and other bull spit.

The fines are a joke 750k to the Pats (and lets be clear Belliache wont pay 1 cent of that "fine") is chump change. If you REALLY wanted to hurt them and send a message to the teams... suspend Belliache and anyone involved and forfeit the Jets game since they got caught in the act.

If this had been any other team they wouldnt have been as leaniant. Can you imagine if this was Al Davis and the Raiders who pulled this stuff and the reaction from the league office?

Slyder
09-17-2007, 11:35 PM
I think some of us saw this coming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFfobQftP5k

My IQ dropped watching that can I sue? :D

SteelSD
09-18-2007, 12:45 AM
So it was OK for Mangini to support cheating so long as it furthered his career? I don't get how you can be so extreme when it comes to the act of cheating but then excuse those who knowingly took part in the cheating. Isn't Belichick trying to advance himself the same way Mangini was?

Mangini outs Belichick while under his employ = Mangini's career likely over.

Belichick outed = $500K fine and he stays employed at the top level of coaching without missing a game.

Think about it. You start out as a ball boy for an NFL team. Work your way through the ranks until you're finally at a point where you might have a future as a Head Coach someday. And you're going to chance blowing it all? We're not talking about a legally-protected "whistleblowing" scenario here. We're talking about something altogether different. And exactly what else did Belichick have to "advance" himself to? Is there a new HEAD Head Coach position I haven't heard about?

For Mangini, the issue was career survival. For Belichick, the issue was winning more football games while he headed a project of intentional cheating, the likes of which we've never seen (by your own account) from a football Head Coach.


What I took exception with was the use of the word ethical. Mangini hasn't done anything ethical. In fact Brian Billick, the coach of the Ravens has accused the Jets of cheating in yesterday's game. And like I mentioned earlier, it has been reported that Mangini left the Pats with a Pats playbok in tow. Real freaking ethical.

Who cares? As I already noted, Mangini's moral fiber has nothing to do with Bill Belichick's blatant cheating over the past number of seasons. It's a red herring and doesn't lessen the seriousness of what Belichick has done. Really, I'm not sure why you think it has anything to do with a discussion about the severity (or lack thereof) of punishment for what Belichick did.

Again, to be clear, Eric Mangini could have a history of clubbing baby seals, running his car without a catalytic converter, and talking loudly in movie theaters and I wouldn't care. And I really hate that last one.


This is EXACTLY what Goodell said. But you probably know more than the NFL commish so I don't know why I am bothering:

"First of all, I'm not going to get into the personal situations of why Wade was taking it, but that's not an accurate point. Second of all, Wade Wilson was involved in a criminal activity. It was against the law. There's a very clear policy for our clubs and our players that if you violate that, it's a four-game suspension. I suspended him for five games because I think a coach should be held to a higher standard. That is why I approached it that way. They all understand the rules, and I think we did what was appropriate in Wade Wilson's case, and I'm comfortable with that."

Looks like it is you who needs help in the research department.

With all due respect, I'm not sure how you think Goodell's quote actually counters my point about Wade Wilson. And I'm not sure what it has to do with Bill Belichick. There's a world of difference between Wilson's act of ignorance and Belichick's act of defiant, arrogant, willfull cheating.

Wade Wilson researched substances that he was told would lessen the severity of symptoms associated with diabetes. Wilson received a prescription from a doctor. Wilson payed for the substances with his own credit card. There was no intent to deceive. The guy didn't know he was doing wrong. Intent is a Big Thing.

Ignorance is no excuse, and Wilson is paying for his mistake. I support that. Goodell fined him 100K and suspended him five games for the transgression. So if I support a penalty against a QB Coach for an transgression of ignorance, how do you think I feel about a guy who knowingly cheated for years?

Bill Belichick was fined 500K for cheating and was suspended 0 games for doing virtually the same thing that got Formula One's team McLaren a 100 million dollar fine and their season wiped away.

On the scale of Bad Things, what Belichick has orchestrated is a lot closer to what McLaren did than it is to what Wade Wilson did. And here's what FIA president Max Mosley said about the McLaren penalty:

"When the history of this gets to be written, it may be (that) we will be reproached not for doing too much, but for doing too little..."

"They were extremely lucky we didn't quite simply say, 'You have polluted the championship in 2007, you've probably polluted it in 2008 - because we've no way of knowing what information you're using for what's in your 2007 and 2008 cars - so you'd better stay out of the championship until 2009, because that way we know it's completely clear..."

Boy does that last quote smell a lot like what Goodell should have said to the New England Patriots. If coaches are to be held to a "higher standard", then what the heck was Bill Belichick doing on the sidelines of their latest game?


Great, you told me how YOU feel. But guess what, there are others out there who may not have the same exact feeling that you do. People have minds of their own. This is why I joked about the Steelers. You seem to live in this world where you think everyone thinks the way you do. Well they don't. Not everyone anyway. You jump down my throat because you aren't jealous of the Yankees. Well guess what, some people ARE jealous of the Yankees. I didn't say everyone was and I certainly didn't say you were, just that SOME are.

Playing the "jealousy" card is just not right. It's too convenient an excuse considering that most folks on this board are more than simple emotional animals. GAC, for example, is a long-tormented Browns fan. But he's able to rationally discuss everything Browns related. He's a joy to talk football with. Ditto for the vast majority of Bengals fans I've run into here. Yeah, some really hate Pittsburgh. Some still can't forgive that franchise for the Carson Palmer injury during the first playoff game in a looooong time. But based on my time here, I'd suggest most- if not all- of them are more ticked off that the Bengals haven't produced a consistent winner in quite a while than they are entrenched in a position that involves the Patriots being a target of "jealousy".

The "jealousy" angle just doesn't play. It's another in a long line of red herrings.

MaineRed
09-18-2007, 12:55 AM
You obviously can't read. I'll put in bold this time, maybe that will help. The underline part was in response to Costas saying just what you are saying, that he had the stuff legally.

""First of all, I'm not going to get into the personal situations of why Wade was taking it, but that's not an accurate point. Second of all, Wade Wilson was involved in a criminal activity. It was against the law. There's a very clear policy for our clubs and our players that if you violate that, it's a four-game suspension. I suspended him for five games because I think a coach should be held to a higher standard. That is why I approached it that way. They all understand the rules, and I think we did what was appropriate in Wade Wilson's case, and I'm comfortable with that."


Is there a new HEAD Head Coach position I haven't heard about?

I'm talking about the desire to stay on top. The same desire Mangini had when he was excusing the activity in New England so he could get ahead. Its the same thing Belichick is doing, using it to get ahead. Not sure why you can't see that. If it was going on before both guys were using it for personal gain. I don't see how we excuse Mangini just because he wasn't personally on top the way BB is. BB has as much right to stay there as Mangini does to get there.

Steel, bringing the F1 story into this is fine but I don't think the NFL has anywhere near the incriminating evidence on the Pats that F1 did with McLaren. The commish said if he finds out more, the punishment will increase and I don't think he was joking. He said the tape had no outcome on the game, I believe him. Not sure what actions would make anyone not.

SteelSD
09-18-2007, 01:12 AM
You obviously can't read. I'll put in bold this time, maybe that will help. The underline part was in response to Costas saying just what you are saying, that he had the stuff legally.

""First of all, I'm not going to get into the personal situations of why Wade was taking it, but that's not an accurate point. Second of all, Wade Wilson was involved in a criminal activity. It was against the law. There's a very clear policy for our clubs and our players that if you violate that, it's a four-game suspension. I suspended him for five games because I think a coach should be held to a higher standard. That is why I approached it that way. They all understand the rules, and I think we did what was appropriate in Wade Wilson's case, and I'm comfortable with that."

Seriously, I already stated that I supported the penalty regardless of Wilson's intent.

You've attempted to turn this thread into anything that doesn't have to do with Bill Belichick's cheating in order to marginalize Bill Belichick's cheating.

Enough already.


I'm talking about the desire to stay on top. The same desire Mangini had when he was excusing the activity in New England so he could get ahead. Its the same thing Belichick is doing, using it to get ahead. Not sure why you can't see that. If it was going on before both guys were using it for personal gain. I don't see how we excuse Mangini just because he wasn't personally on top the way BB is. BB has as much right to stay there as Mangini does to get there.

No. It's not at all the same thing. I hope you never have to live in the land of moral ambiguity in order to get yourself in a position to stop it, but if you do I hope you handle it like Eric Mangini did.

And Billick had no right whatsoever to cheat in order to get his team to the top or to stay on top. None.


Steel, bringing the F1 story into this is fine but I don't think the NFL has anywhere near the incriminating evidence on the Pats that F1 did with McLaren. The commish said if he finds out more, the punishment will increase and I don't think he was joking. He said the tape had no outcome on the game, I believe him. Not sure what actions would make anyone not.

Cripes. The NFL has video and audio evidence of cheating. You don't need more than that and considering that the cameraman was headed to the locker room when apprehended, I'm not sure why you'd even begin to believe that Belichick's cheating has had no outcome on any prior games. The Patriots have been a team known for their ability to make halftime adjustments. I wonder why...

blumj
09-18-2007, 01:49 AM
Except Mangini had another option. He didn't have to choose between keeping his job with the Pats and turning Belichick in. He could have left for another job in the NFL if he was so against what the Pats were doing. Crennell and Saban both offered him their DC jobs, and he chose to stay with the Pats instead. Just long enough to get himself a multi-million dollar contract as the head coach of the NY Jets. Which took all of one year as the DC of the Pats. How long would that have taken in Cleveland or Miami? Sorry, the guy who stuck with the cheater just long enough to set himself up for life before ratting him out gets no whistleblower points from me.

Chip R
09-18-2007, 10:10 AM
This isn't what happened at all, not even close in fact.

If you want to continue to look at things through your extremely foggy glasses then you can look at this way, the Pats paid 750,000 for the right to lose their draft pick. Is that simple enough for you Chip? They didn't move in the draft for that price, they lost their pick for that price. Nothing more, nothing less. The Niners pick has nothing to do with this. Your one is better than none theory is certainly true but incredibly short sighted. Off the charts even.

You don't get ahold of first round picks and then say to yourself, what stupid act can we commit so the commish will take one away? We've got another one so losing one won't matter. That has yet to be said, by anyone.


I'd watch your tone if I were you and save the snark for someone who can't kick your ass out of here.

I'm sure they didn't set out to do this knowing full well they could lose a pick. Obviously they didn't know what the punishment would be. What I'm saying - and I'll use small words so you can understand - is that after the fact, they can afford to lose a 1st round pick because they had 2. I am sure they would have rather had both but they still have one. If they had had just one 1st round pick, the punishment would have hit them harder.

GAC
09-18-2007, 10:39 AM
That is exactly what we are talking about. There is no reason to think they have not tried this before so they could know the signals different teams use to call plays which would give them a huge advantage. See the play called by the defense then the coordinator talks to Brady over the headset tells him what to expect so they run a play to counter that defense.

That may very well be true; but the NFL commish cannot base any punishment he hands down on that assumption. Only on the current infraction.

Now if the notes and tapes Belichick turned over shows evidence of previous violations/practices, then extra (and more severer punishment) then what was just handed down could be forthcoming. And he'd deserve it.

But you can't base Belichick's punishment on one's personal bias or hatred for the guy (or his team).

I thought this was kinda funny from the ESPN article....

Asked if there are more videos, Belichick, in his eighth year as coach of the Patriots, shifted the discussion to next Sunday's home game against Buffalo.

"I think that right now we need to spend our time watching a lot of video on Buffalo," he said.

If I was Buffalo I'd have a bunch of guys with mirrors lined up on the sideline blinding the Pat's cameramen! :lol:

MaineRed
09-18-2007, 12:59 PM
Well said GAC.

Chip I don't know what kind of tone you expect when you say things like the Pats paid the fine for the right to move up in the draft. That isn't what happened at all. You've said some very unfactual things in this thread and played them off as fact.


You've attempted to turn this thread into anything that doesn't have to do with Bill Belichick's cheating in order to marginalize Bill Belichick's cheating.

Not true at all. I didn't bring up McLaren, Wade Wilson, Mangini or anyone else. I started in this thread when people were arging the Pats should be stripped of wins, Super Bowls and everything else. I didn't bring up Wade Wilson until he was mentioned as a victim of the commish for doing less. I didn't bring up Mangini until he was called ethical.

I have no reason to defend Belichick against this. He obviously did it or he wouldn't have been penalized. I tell you that the commish said it didn't have any outcome on the game and you scream back that BB has been doing it all along and halftime adjustments and everything else. Not relevant. And you have no proof to make those allegations. None. Not unless they find past stuff. If they do I expect big punishments and won't lose any sleep over it.


Seriously, I already stated that I supported the penalty regardless of Wilson's intent.


Oh, I must have you confused with someone who was telling me Wilson had a prescription for the stuff.

Chip R
09-18-2007, 01:13 PM
Chip I don't know what kind of tone you expect when you say things like the Pats paid the fine for the right to move up in the draft. That isn't what happened at all. You've said some very unfactual things in this thread and played them off as fact.



You keep saying things like "Is that simple enough for you" and "Do you realize how incredibly stupid that sounds" to me and others and I'm going to do something about it.

I didn't say that's what happened. I said that is the end result of what happened. If they didn't have the Niners pick they only would have had one pick and a low one at that. Now they are still going to have one pick but it's more than likely going to be a higher pick than the one that was taken away. It's like they just paid the NFL to move up however many spots. That's not what actually happened. I know that. I'm not a child. But that's the end result. Now tell me what else I've said that isn't factual.

GAC
09-18-2007, 01:22 PM
I think some of us saw this coming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFfobQftP5k

That was hilarious!

So? Are you gonna do one about leaving Adam Dunn alone? ;)

Chip R
09-18-2007, 01:23 PM
That was hilarious!

So? Are you gonna do one about leaving Adam Dunn alone? ;)


That'd be hilarious. :lol:

MaineRed
09-18-2007, 01:35 PM
It's like they just paid the NFL to move up however many spots. That's not what actually happened. I know that. I'm not a child. But that's the end result. Now tell me what else I've said that isn't factual

But it isn't LIKE that at all. I have no idea why you keep making this comparison and calling it the end result. Its not the end result. The end result is simple, the Patriots lost their first rounder. I don't know why you think this punishment improved their draft positon. It didn't. They were in the same position before Goodell took away the pick with their name on it. They had SFs pick all along.

The Patriots acquired that pick of the Niners by making a trade with the Niners. They didn't move up to that position by paying the NFL. The Patriots were fined 3/4 of a million and they lost a draft pick. There is no end result that has anything to do with the 49ers pick. There is no need for an and or a but to explain they have another first round pick. It is an entity all by itself. If the Bengals get caught doing this and are docked a first round pick it will not be less fair because they don't have another pick. Just like it wasn't unfair last year when the Bengals made a first round pick while the Pats didn't.

SteelSD
09-18-2007, 01:40 PM
Not true at all. I didn't bring up McLaren, Wade Wilson, Mangini or anyone else. I started in this thread when people were arging the Pats should be stripped of wins, Super Bowls and everything else. I didn't bring up Wade Wilson until he was mentioned as a victim of the commish for doing less. I didn't bring up Mangini until he was called ethical.

You've used Mangini as a red herring for quite some time. The Wade Wilson comp you responded to was right on the money. For Wilson's transgression of ignorance, the NFL broke his arms and legs. For Belichick's meaningful long-term cheating, the Goodell bruised him.

And I used McLaren to counter your incorrect premise that other sports don't deal take severe hard-line stances with cheaters.


I have no reason to defend Belichick against this.

Yet, here you are playing a "jealousy" card when fans take issue with what Belichick did.


He obviously did it or he wouldn't have been penalized. I tell you that the commish said it didn't have any outcome on the game and you scream back that BB has been doing it all along and halftime adjustments and everything else. Not relevant. And you have no proof to make those allegations. None. Not unless they find past stuff. If they do I expect big punishments and won't lose any sleep over it.

Really? So, even though Eric Mangini knew of Belichick's cheating while working with Belichick years before Belichick was finally caught, this was, apparently the first time Belichick had done wrong?

No. The very nature of how Belichick was caught tells us that he's been doing the same thing for years now. And his behavior has quite obviously had some affect on past NFL contests involving the Patriots. We know that because if it didn't, Belichick wouldn't have continued to arrogantly snub his nose at NFL rules.


Oh, I must have you confused with someone who was telling me Wilson had a prescription for the stuff.

Having a prescription for an illegal substance doesn't make the substance legal. I never positioned that Wilson's behavior was fine and dandy because he had a prescription. Sorry. Didn't happen.

Now, unless you'd actually care to talk about Bill Belichick's cheating rather than everything else that has nothing to do with Bill Belichick's cheating, I'm done with this conversation.

Puffy
09-18-2007, 01:54 PM
Really? So, even though Eric Mangini knew of Belichick's cheating while working with Belichick years before Belichick was finally caught, this was, apparently the first time Belichick had done wrong?

No. The very nature of how Belichick was caught tells us that he's been doing the same thing for years now. And his behavior has quite obviously had some affect on past NFL contests involving the Patriots. We know that because if it didn't, Belichick wouldn't have continued to arrogantly snub his nose at NFL rules.





How exactly does it tell us that? With all the bad blood thats left the Pats over the last 3 years, 4 years, whatever you don't think one person - just one - would step up and stick it to them if they were cheating all this time?

What about Jimmy Johnson stating that he had people rummage thru the garbage after the visiting team left? What about the reports that visiting teams lock their lockerrooms now so home teams can't wander in (this is relatively new in the NFL)?

There is an awful lot of righteousness going on in this thread (not directing this at you anymore Steel, so please don't take it at you) for an incident we know very little about really. The pats cheated. They got caught. They lost a first round pick and Belicheck lost $500,000 (he makes 4.5 a year, so this ain't chump change - and Goodell said it WILL come from him, not the Krafts).

And this is an incident that actually would help them very little in the Jets game. To get maximum benefit from this type of cheating one would have to study the film after the game, break it down, make a spreadsheet, etc - all after the game. For the benefit of the game itself - well, binoculars are legal and do the exact same thing as filming the game. The benefit here was the post game breakdown. And if a team does not change hand signals from one game to the next against a team, well shame on them.

I think the Pats cheated. I think they got caught. I think the punishment was fair. And I think its over now.

blumj
09-18-2007, 03:59 PM
And his behavior has quite obviously had some affect on past NFL contests involving the Patriots. We know that because if it didn't, Belichick wouldn't have continued to arrogantly snub his nose at NFL rules.
Are you kidding me? Arrogantly snubbing his nose at NFL rules is pretty much Bill Belichick's favorite pasttime. For goodness sake, Tom Brady has been "probable, right shoulder" on the Pats injury report every single week for 5+ years because Bill Belichick likes nothing better than to arrogantly snub his nose at the NFL's rules.

MaineRed
09-18-2007, 04:12 PM
Now, unless you'd actually care to talk about Bill Belichick's cheating rather than everything else that has nothing to do with Bill Belichick's cheating, I'm done with this conversation.

You mean like Wade Wilson, Eric Mangini, Formula One and the 49ers draft pick?

If you don't want to discuss some of these things, don't bring them up. I am not defending Billl Belichick over the cheating, I am defending him over some of the ridiculous things said in this thread.

Lastly, how do you get a prescription for something and then have it in your possession illegaly? Marijuana is illegal but if a doctor gives me a prescription for it, I'm not breaking the law by having it.

Your still wrong on the Wade Wilson angle.

Chip R
09-18-2007, 04:13 PM
Are you kidding me? Arrogantly snubbing his nose at NFL rules is pretty much Bill Belichick's favorite pasttime. For goodness sake, Tom Brady has been "probable, right shoulder" on the Pats injury report every single week for 5+ years because Bill Belichick likes nothing better than to arrogantly snub his nose at the NFL's rules.


To be fair, other teams - most notoriously the Broncos - have pulled stuff like this too.

MaineRed
09-18-2007, 04:23 PM
All teams, no matter what Steel says pull stuff.

Mike Ditka was telling a story about the 49ers after they started to script their plays. Ditka said that the 49ers would always claim their headsets weren't working so the other team would have to take theirs off as well. Didn't matter to the Niners, they had their first 15 or 25 plays already scripted.

A cheater or a genius?

MaineRed
09-18-2007, 04:25 PM
Ravens coach Brian Billick yesterday accused the Jets of using an "illegal" ploy to draw Baltimore offside during Sunday's game.

Billick said the Jets' defense shouted out signals to intentionally throw off the Ravens' offense. He claimed the tactic led to the three illegal-procedure penalties.

"They did an outstanding job. I credit the New York Jets. Their defensive line and linebackers did a very, very effective job of illegally simulating the snap count," Billick said as he discussed his team's 20-13 victory. "They did it the whole game long. It needs to be caught."

For the game, the Jets jad two penalties for 10 yards and the Ravens were penalized 11 times for 100 yards.


http://www.nypost.com/seven/09182007/sports/jets/billick__jets_d_cheated.htm

I wonder where Mr. Ethics was during this.

SteelSD
09-18-2007, 08:43 PM
Lastly, how do you get a prescription for something and then have it in your possession illegaly? Marijuana is illegal but if a doctor gives me a prescription for it, I'm not breaking the law by having it.

Look, a doctor can write you a prescription for cocaine if he wanted to. All he has to do is put pen to paper. Doesn't mean you have a legal right to acquire it and possess it.

Whoever Wilson got that prescription from apparently had no legal right to prescribe the substance in question and Wilson had no legal right to acquire it. Wilson didn't know that. Mistake of ignorance. But punished he was and punished he should have been.


Your still wrong on the Wade Wilson angle.

How would you know? You quite obviously don't understand circumstances of the Wilson situation to begin with.


All teams, no matter what Steel says pull stuff.

Sure. Go find the post where I stated that. I'll be waiting.

SteelSD
09-18-2007, 08:47 PM
How exactly does it tell us that? With all the bad blood thats left the Pats over the last 3 years, 4 years, whatever you don't think one person - just one - would step up and stick it to them if they were cheating all this time?

If Mangini knew about it from his time with Belichick, that means the cheating has been going on for at least three years. Limiting it to those three years is, IMHO, wildly optimistic.

Ltlabner
09-18-2007, 09:42 PM
If Mangini knew about it from his time with Belichick, that means the cheating has been going on for at least three years. Limiting it to those three years is, IMHO, wildly optimistic.

I don't know Steel. As someone without a dog in the fight (I don't care for football...sorry. Baseball or bust) it does seem hard to believe that rampant, flagerant and institutional cheating would have been going on all those years and *no one* ratted them out.

I'm not saying they haven't been cheating all along, I just think Puffy rasies a good point that it's odd that nobody blabbed about it. Especially if they could have used it to either get back at the Pats (bad blood scenario) or make a buck (sell the story scenario).

Just my $.02 (and it doesn't change that they should hang Belicheck from the nearst yard arm).

MaineRed
09-18-2007, 10:25 PM
Look, a doctor can write you a prescription for cocaine if he wanted to. All he has to do is put pen to paper. Doesn't mean you have a legal right to acquire it and possess it.

It also means you don't have a real prescription which means you don't have a prescription. All you have is a piece of paper with some words on it. You don't have a prescription for anything. A doctor has no more of a right to prescribe cocaine as you or I do. Not sure what gives you such an idea.


Whoever Wilson got that prescription from apparently had no legal right to prescribe the substance in question and Wilson had no legal right to acquire it. Wilson didn't know that. Mistake of ignorance. But punished he was and punished he should have been.

Why are you defending Wilson? Mistake of ignorance? Why is he allowed to use that excuse but Belichick isn't? The guy didn't know he shouldn't have HGH? Are you kidding? That is laughable.

BTW, Belichick should have been punished and punished he was.


How would you know? You quite obviously don't understand circumstances of the Wilson situation to begin with.

About all I have stated in regards to Wade Wilson are the NFL commissioners comments to Bob Costas. All you've given is your opinion. Bob Costas made the same assumption you are making in regard to Wilson and Goodell told him he was making false assumptions. That is all I know and all I am pretending to know.

SteelSD
09-19-2007, 12:36 AM
It also means you don't have a real prescription which means you don't have a prescription. All you have is a piece of paper with some words on it. You don't have a prescription for anything. A doctor has no more of a right to prescribe cocaine as you or I do. Not sure what gives you such an idea.

That's one of the best examples I've ever seen of someone trying to play a really bad game of semantics. Wade Wilson felt he had a legitimate prescription. Whether or not he had a legit scrip is immaterial to the point of intent. If Wilson knew that he was going to, in the end, receive an illegal substance, then why did Wilson consult with who he thought to be a legitimate M.D. in order to receive what he thought to be a legitimate prescription for a substance he didn't know was illegal?

Answer- He wouldn't have.

Oh, and if the substance was HGH, then it can be legally prescribed for the right reasons; just like marijuana (if State law allows). However, marijuana can only be prescribed for the right reasons. Ditto for the FDA-approved prescription forms of HGH.

As black-and-white as you want to be, there are shades of gray involved that you haven't even considered. That's pretty much the way life is. Hitting someone on the sidewalk because you're not paying attention while riding your bike simply isn't the same thing as jumping in your car and running over a pedestrian on purpose.


Why are you defending Wilson? Mistake of ignorance? Why is he allowed to use that excuse but Belichick isn't? The guy didn't know he shouldn't have HGH? Are you kidding? That is laughable.

Wade Wilson felt he was receiving a legal form of whatever substance via legal channels. That's entirely clear. Bill Belichick isn't allowed to use an "ignorance" excuse because there was no ignorance involved. The two acts aren't even in the same galaxy and intent has everything to do with that.


BTW, Belichick should have been punished and punished he was.

Sure he was. He was given a parking ticket for vehicular homicide. Solid.


About all I have stated in regards to Wade Wilson are the NFL commissioners comments to Bob Costas. All you've given is your opinion. Bob Costas made the same assumption you are making in regard to Wilson and Goodell told him he was making false assumptions. That is all I know and all I am pretending to know.

No, "false assumption" is not what Goodell said to Costas. Here's the Costas' question, which you failed to post because it didn't support you:

Costas asked: "Wade Wilson, quarterback coach of the Cowboys, received a shipment of HGH. You suspended him five games, fined him $100,000, which is one-third of his salary. Half a million, we guess, is about one-tenth of Belichick's salary. Wilson, who is no longer a player, said he received it to help him cope with the effects of diabetes. Is that a disproportionate penalty?"

Here's my quote you responded to with Goodell's response to Costas' question:

SteelSD: You obviously haven't researched the Wade Wilson suspension or you'd understand that Wilson had prescriptions for anything he received and put the purchases on his credit card.

Costas asked something completely different from what I stated, but you figured that Goodell's response (right or wrong) effectively countered both points? No way in hades. All you've done here is placed all trust in the character and reliability of Goodell, which effectively refutes exactly nothing.

But hey, anything to distract us from Belichick's cheating.

Yachtzee
09-19-2007, 12:41 AM
I don't know Steel. As someone without a dog in the fight (I don't care for football...sorry. Baseball or bust) it does seem hard to believe that rampant, flagerant and institutional cheating would have been going on all those years and *no one* ratted them out.

I'm not saying they haven't been cheating all along, I just think Puffy rasies a good point that it's odd that nobody blabbed about it. Especially if they could have used it to either get back at the Pats (bad blood scenario) or make a buck (sell the story scenario).

Just my $.02 (and it doesn't change that they should hang Belicheck from the nearst yard arm).

I don't know. I think we would have to ask someone with inside experience in professional sports, but I've heard that there are certain things in a sports organization are subject to an omerta-like code of silence so that going public would lead to the person who broke the silence needing to find a new career. What goes on in the team's facilities stays in the teams facilities. Look at how difficult it is to get baseball players to open up about steroid use. No one wants to break ranks for fear of being ostracized. Only guys already on the outside like Canseco and Caminiti have been willing to talk openly. Maybe chili or TC could shed some light on things.

SteelSD
09-19-2007, 01:06 AM
I don't know Steel. As someone without a dog in the fight (I don't care for football...sorry. Baseball or bust) it does seem hard to believe that rampant, flagerant and institutional cheating would have been going on all those years and *no one* ratted them out.

I'm not saying they haven't been cheating all along, I just think Puffy rasies a good point that it's odd that nobody blabbed about it. Especially if they could have used it to either get back at the Pats (bad blood scenario) or make a buck (sell the story scenario).

Just my $.02 (and it doesn't change that they should hang Belicheck from the nearst yard arm).

I think we need to realize what a closed society the NFL actually is. No one who has to rely on anyone else is going to burn bridges publicly. To this point, only two NFL Head Coaches have been from the Belichick line as of 02/04/07:

Romeo Crennel- Cleveland
Eric Mangini- New York Jets

We know that Belichick burned his bridges with Mangini. That led to the exposing of Belichick as a cheater. I can't find a game where Crennel came up against Belichick. Those are the two guys who actually have some power in the NFL and one (Mangini) had to constantly face Belichick.

And NFL teams, including the Green Bay Packers last season, had heard that the Patriots were cheating. I'd suggest that the word was already out on the Pats from seasons prior and that Mangini was finally able to grab the smoking gun.

GAC
09-19-2007, 07:26 AM
For Belichick's meaningful long-term cheating, the Goodell bruised him.

Don't they have to prove, bring forth solid evidence that verifies Belichick has been engaging in "meaningful long-term cheating"?

Common sense tells me that this wasn't just an isolated incident and there probably was a previous pattern of behavior. But you can't judge/punish someone until that evidence is uncovered.

It was reported earlier this week that Belichick turned over further notes and tapes that may very well verify that, and that there is a more in-depth investigation going on over this.

That is why I think Goodell reacted too quickly on this situation in handing out the punishment. He's the new sheriff in town, and was trying to pull a Barney Fife and "nip it, nip it, nip it in the bud", case settled, and lets move on, when he should have shown more forebearance and waited.

I personally think he was trying to sweep this under the rug quickly, with the intent not so much of trying to protect Belichick and the Pats, but the NFL's image. With the new season just starting, he didn't want this thing to be a drag on the season.

If a law enforcement agency reacted like that, without considering the fact that an investigation could bring far more wide ranging evidence, they'd be castigated and ridiculed for not bungling the case.

The NFL and Goodell could come out of this looking bad (and biased).

GAC
09-19-2007, 07:28 AM
I think we need to realize what a closed society the NFL actually is. No one who has to rely on anyone else is going to burn bridges publicly. To this point, only two NFL Head Coaches have been from the Belichick line as of 02/04/07:

Romeo Crennel- Cleveland

If Crennels cheating then he is doing a terrible job at it! :lol:

MaineRed
09-19-2007, 08:20 AM
Steel, how do you know what Wade Wilson thought? How do you know he is telling the truth? Are you Wade Wilson? You seem to be doing an awful lot of speaking for him. I don't get why it is so easy to believe his word but then turn around and question the actions and words of anyone else who gets brought up?


Sure he was. He was given a parking ticket for vehicular homicide. Solid.

Why do you get to make this determination? You don't even know what they are being penalized for. Cheating? Every team, "cheats". When you do the equivalent of parking your car in a no parking space, you get a five yard penalty. When you do what Belichick does you lose a first round draft pick and get the maximum fine allowed.

Nobody has commited vehicular homicide. Not even close. If they did then the commish would have given them a harsher, more deserving penalty.

You just want to believe they were guilty of vehicular homicide because you have an obvious hatred for the Patriots and appear to be quite jealous.

MaineRed
09-19-2007, 08:27 AM
We know that Belichick burned his bridges with Mangini. That led to the exposing of Belichick as a cheater. I can't find a game where Crennel came up against Belichick. Those are the two guys who actually have some power in the NFL and one (Mangini) had to constantly face Belichick.

Thank goodness for Brian Billick. I wonder what bridge Mangini burned that Billick felt compleled to expose Mangini as a cheater.

They all cheat. Using technology to cheat is no different than telling your lineman to yell hike hike when the other team has the ball.

I just can't wait until someone points a finger at the Steelers. That is going to be hilarious.

Yachtzee
09-19-2007, 10:05 AM
They all cheat. Using technology to cheat is no different than telling your lineman to yell hike hike when the other team has the ball.



There's a quite a degree of difference between cheating by videotaping signals v. cheating by simulating the snap count.

SteelSD
09-19-2007, 10:46 AM
Don't they have to prove, bring forth solid evidence that verifies Belichick has been engaging in "meaningful long-term cheating"?

Common sense tells me that this wasn't just an isolated incident and there probably was a previous pattern of behavior. But you can't judge/punish someone until that evidence is uncovered.

It was reported earlier this week that Belichick turned over further notes and tapes that may very well verify that, and that there is a more in-depth investigation going on over this.

That is why I think Goodell reacted too quickly on this situation in handing out the punishment. He's the new sheriff in town, and was trying to pull a Barney Fife and "nip it, nip it, nip it in the bud", case settled, and lets move on, when he should have shown more forebearance and waited.

I personally think he was trying to sweep this under the rug quickly, with the intent not so much of trying to protect Belichick and the Pats, but the NFL's image. With the new season just starting, he didn't want this thing to be a drag on the season.

If a law enforcement agency reacted like that, without considering the fact that an investigation could bring far more wide ranging evidence, they'd be castigated and ridiculed for not bungling the case.

The NFL and Goodell could come out of this looking bad (and biased).

That's a reasonable take, you jealous Browns fan. ;)

Chip R
09-19-2007, 10:50 AM
That's a reasonable take, you jealous Browns fan. ;)


The Browns fans are mad cause Belichek wasn't cheating when he was with them. Or he didn't cheat good enough. :p:

IslandRed
09-19-2007, 11:15 AM
That is why I think Goodell reacted too quickly on this situation in handing out the punishment. He's the new sheriff in town, and was trying to pull a Barney Fife and "nip it, nip it, nip it in the bud", case settled, and lets move on, when he should have shown more forebearance and waited.

I personally think he was trying to sweep this under the rug quickly, with the intent not so much of trying to protect Belichick and the Pats, but the NFL's image. With the new season just starting, he didn't want this thing to be a drag on the season.

If a law enforcement agency reacted like that, without considering the fact that an investigation could bring far more wide ranging evidence, they'd be castigated and ridiculed for not bungling the case.

The NFL and Goodell could come out of this looking bad (and biased).

I see your point, but it's not an exact parallel. In the real world, trials are time-consuming and expensive. It behooves the law to investigate as thoroughly as possible and put the whole package on the table at once. It increases the chance of a conviction and it's less stress on the system.

The NFL has no such restrictions. If investigations turn up something new, there's nothing stopping them from bringing Belichick and the Patriots in right away and whacking them again. As long as the investigation is done, and the league doesn't just wash its hands and say "that's over," I have no problem with the league handling the known violation while it looks further.

MaineRed
09-19-2007, 11:16 AM
There's a quite a degree of difference between cheating by videotaping signals v. cheating by simulating the snap count.

The main difference being that the Jets cheating was actually utilized during a game.

The Patriots had a videotape. There is no evidence that anything sinister was done with that tape. In fact, according to the NFL commish, nothing sinister was done with the tape.

These suggestiions that the Pats knew what was coming at them on every play are crazy. Goodell found no evidence of that, where are people on redszone getting it?

We can't make judgements on where that tape was going or what the Pats were GOING to do with it. This thread has been all about punishing them for what they DID do with it, which is nothing. Which is why they didn't get a harsher penalty.

It really isn't hard to figure out.

Chip R
09-19-2007, 11:25 AM
The main difference being that the Jets cheating was actually utilized during a game.



Alleged cheating. And when it happens during play, it's the officials' problem. Now the league can also step in after the fact like they do with some extremely hard hits but it's really something the officials have to deal with.

blumj
09-19-2007, 11:49 AM
These suggestiions that the Pats knew what was coming at them on every play are crazy.
Maybe I'm just dense, but I honestly still don't get how any system of sign stealing, no matter how sophisticated, could ever accomplish this when teams are fully aware that other teams are trying to steal their signs. They've got several coaches making signs simultaneously on the sidelines for exactly this reason, to keep the other team from RELIABLY decoding them. At any point during the game, all they have to do is change which coach is giving the real signals, they don't have to even change the signs, although they can do that, too. And they can do it randomly at various points throughout the game. No matter how quickly the other team can figure the signals out, they have absolutely no way of knowing if it's still the same guy giving them or if they've changed them, so how can they ever actually trust the information they're getting from stealing the signs?

Roy Tucker
09-19-2007, 12:34 PM
I think the Occam's Razor in all this is to allow communication to the defense leader (MLB, etc.) via radio headset just like the offense. Stealing offense signs as a problem doesn't exist.

Then all this signals, counter-measures, counter-counter measures, video taping, smoke signals, jamming, etc etc nonsense goes away and the NFL can go on to playing games.

Who to pick for the defensive leader is a little more difficult than the logical offense leader (QB) but I'm sure something can be worked out.

MaineRed
09-19-2007, 12:56 PM
Alleged cheating. And when it happens during play, it's the officials' problem. Now the league can also step in after the fact like they do with some extremely hard hits but it's really something the officials have to deal with.

Well if you want to be accurate, be accurate on the Patriots.

The Patriots weren't fined or punished for cheating, they were fined for a violation of NFL rules. We don't know if the violation was a cheatin violation.

We can assume what they were up to was going to lead to cheating. But you don't get punished on assumption, just on what you actually did. Based on what I know of what the Pats did, they did not, "cheat".

RFS62
09-19-2007, 01:10 PM
This thread is making a strong bid to overtake the "running or sliding" thread as the Redszoniest thread I've ever read.

M2
09-19-2007, 01:55 PM
This thread is making a strong bid to overtake the "running or sliding" thread as the Redszoniest thread I've ever read.

It's high time we brought these two threads together. What about running with binoculars vs. sliding with a video camera?

RFS62
09-19-2007, 03:36 PM
It's high time we brought these two threads together. What about running with binoculars vs. sliding with a video camera?



I can't even believe you said that.

How on earth can you run with binoculars? You'd be bouncing along and always out of focus.

Geez, man. Sliding with a video camera is the only reasonable choice.

M2
09-19-2007, 03:42 PM
I can't even believe you said that.

How on earth can you run with binoculars? You'd be bouncing along and always out of focus.

Geez, man. Sliding with a video camera is the only reasonable choice.

But the binoculars allow you to see the throw coming from the outfield and they're easier to throw at a fielder. Plus, I believe the rulebook explicitly states that if the video camera is to considered part of the runner's body, meaning that it gives the defense more to tag.

RFS62
09-19-2007, 03:59 PM
But the binoculars allow you to see the throw coming from the outfield and they're easier to throw at a fielder. Plus, I believe the rulebook explicitly states that if the video camera is to considered part of the runner's body, meaning that it gives the defense more to tag.


I have to laugh.

Binoculars easier to throw at a fielder? Ha. Ha Ha. Ha Ha Ha.

The aerodynamics of a pair of binoculars make an accurate throw FAR less likely than chucking your standard videocamera, especially for long distances.

M2
09-19-2007, 04:45 PM
I have to laugh.

Binoculars easier to throw at a fielder? Ha. Ha Ha. Ha Ha Ha.

The aerodynamics of a pair of binoculars make an accurate throw FAR less likely than chucking your standard videocamera, especially for long distances.

Yeah, because it's sooooo easy to throw a video camera mid-slide.

RFS62
09-19-2007, 05:05 PM
Yeah, because it's sooooo easy to throw a video camera mid-slide.


Whatever.

It's pretty obvious you've never tried to throw a video camera, or you wouldn't make such a crazy statement.

You need to get your nose out of a technical manual and actually throw a camera sometime.

M2
09-19-2007, 05:20 PM
Whatever.

It's pretty obvious you've never tried to throw a video camera, or you wouldn't make such a crazy statement.

You need to get your nose out of a technical manual and actually throw a camera sometime.

Technical schmechnical. I'd be going with time-tested PROVEN method of binocular chucking, something that can easily be done by anyone who doesn't throw like a girl.

Roy Tucker
09-19-2007, 05:22 PM
It's not the thing you fling, it's the fling itself.

Ltlabner
09-19-2007, 05:29 PM
Who cares, Dunn strikes out too much and Marty sucks.

RFS62
09-19-2007, 05:51 PM
It's not the thing you fling, it's the fling itself.



Thank you. My point exactly.

RFS62
09-19-2007, 05:53 PM
Technical schmechnical. I'd be going with time-tested PROVEN method of binocular chucking, something that can easily be done by anyone who doesn't throw like a girl.



Oh.. Oh... I get it.

Yer one of them there massagonists

I'll bet you Jenny Finch would go upside your haid if'n she heard that kind of talk.

GAC
09-19-2007, 05:54 PM
Well if you want to be accurate, be accurate on the Patriots.

The Patriots weren't fined or punished for cheating, they were fined for a violation of NFL rules. We don't know if the violation was a cheatin violation.

Semantics. Why else would a team be filming an opposing team's defensive coaches who were sending signals to their unit on the field during the game if not to cheat?

Ltlabner
09-19-2007, 05:55 PM
How does throwing a camera when there are runners in scoring position factor into the debate?

TeamSelig
09-19-2007, 06:01 PM
Or we could just throw defensive coaches out onto the field? I suspect that their range would be limited, and we would lose a high amount of Touchdowns Created / 16.

Yachtzee
09-19-2007, 06:14 PM
What this team needs is someone who can hit with RISP while using a Polaroid. Someone who plays the game the right way by shaking the picture as it develops on the way to first base. That's what I call hustle.

M2
09-19-2007, 06:15 PM
Oh.. Oh... I get it.

Yer one of them there massagonists

I'll bet you Jenny Finch would go upside your haid if'n she heard that kind of talk.

And she'd probably do it with a pair of binoculars while running.

RFS62
09-19-2007, 06:15 PM
What this team needs is someone who can hit with RISP while using a Polaroid. Someone who plays the game the right way by shaking the picture as it develops on the way to first base. That's what I call hustle.


Old school. I like it.

RFS62
09-19-2007, 06:17 PM
And she'd probably do it with a pair of binoculars while running.



LEAVE JENNY ALOOONE!!!!!!

WMR
09-19-2007, 06:18 PM
What this team needs is someone who can hit with RISP while using a Polaroid. Someone who plays the game the right way by shaking the picture as it develops on the way to first base. That's what I call hustle.

How scrappy would it be if they developed the film themselves?

blumj
09-19-2007, 06:46 PM
This thread is making a strong bid to overtake the "running or sliding" thread as the Redszoniest thread I've ever read.

I'm with you now. It really needed the 2 extra pages of smartass.

GAC
09-19-2007, 07:54 PM
Maybe a coach needs to get inventive and go all James Bond like and install those mini cameras in the cheerleaders pom-poms?

MaineRed
09-19-2007, 08:47 PM
Semantics. Why else would a team be filming an opposing team's defensive coaches who were sending signals to their unit on the field during the game if not to cheat?

So if I go play golf and shoot 75 by hitting every ball down the middle of the fairway I "cheated" if I played with a hole cut in my pocket so I could drop one down my pant leg IF I lost a ball?

Wouldn't I only have "cheated" if I actually dropped the ball down the pant leg and claimed I found my ball?

THIS is why the Pats didn't have their head cut off by the commish. He caught them with a hole in their pocket, he did not catch them taking advantage of said hole.

blumj
09-19-2007, 09:22 PM
Maybe a coach needs to get inventive and go all James Bond like and install those mini cameras in the cheerleaders pom-poms?
That's maybe the most surprising part of all this to me. I mean, why not go all James Bond like if you're going to do something like this?

GAC
09-20-2007, 09:28 AM
So if I go play golf and shoot 75 by hitting every ball down the middle of the fairway I "cheated" if I played with a hole cut in my pocket so I could drop one down my pant leg IF I lost a ball?

Wouldn't I only have "cheated" if I actually dropped the ball down the pant leg and claimed I found my ball?

Only if the PGA has a rule that specifically covers that. And states that any balls in your pants better be the ones attached to your anatomy. And if you drop one of those you have a more serious problem then cheating. ;)

Why did Belichick apologize if there was no wrongdoing?

And again I ask......

what was the intent behind filming the opposing team's defensive coaches sending in their signals? Why were they doing that if not to cheat (gain an advantage)?

Home movies?

And you're talking to a guy who is a fan of the Patriots and has been since the days of Jim Plunkett and Steve Grogan.

And like I stated earlier - I think that Goodell and the NFL reacted too quickly on this situation when a further investigation has now been implemented. Why investgate further after you've already handed down your punishment (verdict)? They should have waited. There actually could be more to this then meets the eye, and as I stated earlier, that could make Goodell look bad.

Goodell "fumbled the ball" on this one IMHO.

registerthis
09-20-2007, 10:50 AM
THIS is why the Pats didn't have their head cut off by the commish. He caught them with a hole in their pocket, he did not catch them taking advantage of said hole.

Riiiiight.

I'm sure Bill was just trying to figure out what flavor of Gatorade they were serving.

registerthis
09-20-2007, 10:51 AM
Goodell "fumbled the ball" on this one IMHO.

Indeed. IMO, this is as serious an offense as gambling or steroid use. Unfortunately, it wasn't treated that way.

IslandRed
09-20-2007, 11:28 AM
THIS is why the Pats didn't have their head cut off by the commish. He caught them with a hole in their pocket, he did not catch them taking advantage of said hole.

The more proper analogy would be:

Commissioner: "We've heard people drop balls down their pants legs so they can hit a better shot. Especially you, Pat. We'd better not catch anyone doing it."

Then Pat is caught red-handed dropping the ball down his pants leg.

Now, Pat could claim "well, I wasn't going to actually hit that ball," or "I had a great round going anyway," or argue the interpretations of "drop" or "pants leg," but c'mon. Goodell knew exactly what the Patriots did and why they were doing it. Whatever rationale he used for deciding on the punishment, there was no lack of clarity on that matter.

Roy Tucker
09-20-2007, 11:31 AM
So if I go play golf and shoot 75 by hitting every ball down the middle of the fairway I "cheated" if I played with a hole cut in my pocket so I could drop one down my pant leg IF I lost a ball?



If you attach it with a bungee cord, you won't lose your ball.

blumj
09-20-2007, 12:06 PM
Indeed. IMO, this is as serious an offense as gambling or steroid use. Unfortunately, it wasn't treated that way.
Okay, I'm a Pats fan, and I honestly never gave a damn if they suspended Belichick for X number of games or not. To me, taking a 1st round pick is treating it very seriously, and I'd guess a lot of NFL coaches and especially FOs would feel the same. The fine is the equivalent of a suspension in terms of taking pay from BB. Keeping him away from the stadium, without having any real ability to keep him from communicating with the team during the week, seems like it would be the most meaningless sort of punishment. Maybe it would add slightly to the humiliation factor, but it is hardly likely to cause the loss of games, certainly not as much as the loss of an affordable starter that a mid-late 1st round pick represents.

registerthis
09-20-2007, 12:19 PM
Okay, I'm a Pats fan, and I honestly never gave a damn if they suspended Belichick for X number of games or not.

Personally, I'd have suspended him for the year and taken away multiple draft picks. If other coaches were accomplices in this (likely), then they should be suspended for the remainder of the year as well. A fine is *not* the equivalent of a suspension, because Belichick gets to keep doing his job--true punishment would have included depriving the team of the coach that has helped guide them to such success. A monetary fine seems rather limp to me.

blumj
09-20-2007, 12:37 PM
Personally, I'd have suspended him for the year and taken away multiple draft picks. If other coaches were accomplices in this (likely), then they should be suspended for the remainder of the year as well. A fine is *not* the equivalent of a suspension, because Belichick gets to keep doing his job--true punishment would have included depriving the team of the coach that has helped guide them to such success. A monetary fine seems rather limp to me.

Okay, that's a lot worse, but the punishment you're asking for is totally unrealistic. Goodell doesn't have a guaranteed lifetime contract as NFL dictator, and Kraft isn't the only backer he'd lose if he did anything like that.

MaineRed
09-20-2007, 12:54 PM
Riiiiight.

I'm sure Bill was just trying to figure out what flavor of Gatorade they were serving.

Where did I say anything like this? They either used the info they had to predetermine what plays were coming or they didn't.

What you think or believe they were going to do doesn't really matter. Obviously it wasn't to check on the gatordade.

Again I think this is why the penalty was not as harsh as you would like. The infraction just wasn't as bad as you want to believe, especially since they were caught before they were able to do what you think they were going to do.

I understand you can make an educated guess at what they were going to do but how can you throw the book at them? If a terrorist is cuaght taking flight lessons we can't charge him with killing 3,000 since that was probably his goal. We can charge him with a number of things, but not that.

Just like the hole in the pocket of the golfer. He isn't cheating until he drops the ball down the pant leg. We can argue about his intent but you can't penalize the guy for having a hole in his pants. I know this isn't the same thing but people have accused Belichick of "cheating". It just isn't true if the info wasn't used. He was caught with info that may have led to cheating, probably even likely led to cheating but if he didn't get that far it is hard to penalize him for it the way many want him punished.

MaineRed
09-20-2007, 01:02 PM
Okay, that's a lot worse, but the punishment you're asking for is totally unrealistic. Goodell doesn't have a guaranteed lifetime contract as NFL dictator, and Kraft isn't the only backer he'd lose if he did anything like that.

Good point. According to Peter King, not all teams do this but it is A LOT more prevelant than people want to believe and there are unwritten rules about speaking of it.

He said it, not me. But I agree with him. Those guys holding the clipboards over their heads are hiding from someone, for a reason. They are scared to death someone is watching and probably because they know someone is. I also wondered why those idiots were doing that but perhaps this is why.

King said that Mangini didn't gain many friends in the coaching ranks by opening his mouth. Makes me think Brian Billick might not have been as animated after last weeks game with the Jets if Mangini had just kept quiet.

Yachtzee
09-20-2007, 01:37 PM
Personally, I think the appropriate punishment would be to make the Patriots hand over their playbook to everyone else on their schedule and ban them from using headsets so that they have to yell out all their signals.

WMR
09-20-2007, 01:42 PM
Personally, I think the appropriate punishment would be to make the Patriots hand over their playbook to everyone else on their schedule and ban them from using headsets so that they have to yell out all their signals.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

GAC
09-20-2007, 01:43 PM
They either used the info they had to predetermine what plays were coming or they didn't.

Isn't that another way of saying cheating?

MaineRed
09-20-2007, 02:08 PM
Is it cheating to have info on your opponent? IMO, not until you use it. Your breaking the rules by having it. Not cheating.

Now, let me ask you, was it cheating when Lawyer Milloy went to Buffalo just before the season opener a few years back and then somehow helped Buffalo beat New England 31-0?

There are many ways to gather info on an opponent, I really don't think the fact that Belichick used a camera to gain the same info you can get by signing a player who has recently played for that team should be causing such a fuss in the year 2007.

Roy Tucker
09-20-2007, 02:19 PM
From www.dictionary.com...



cheat /tʃit/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[cheet] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2. to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3. to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
–verb (used without object)
4. to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6. to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7. Informal. to be sexually unfaithful (often fol. by on): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.
–noun
8. a person who acts dishonestly, deceives, or defrauds: He is a cheat and a liar.
9. a fraud; swindle; deception: The game was a cheat.
10. Law. the fraudulent obtaining of another's property by a pretense or trick.
11. an impostor: The man who passed as an earl was a cheat.

Yachtzee
09-20-2007, 02:45 PM
Is it cheating to have info on your opponent? IMO, not until you use it. Your breaking the rules by having it. Not cheating.

Now, let me ask you, was it cheating when Lawyer Milloy went to Buffalo just before the season opener a few years back and then somehow helped Buffalo beat New England 31-0?

There are many ways to gather info on an opponent, I really don't think the fact that Belichick used a camera to gain the same info you can get by signing a player who has recently played for that team should be causing such a fuss in the year 2007.

In school, if you have the answer key to the test, they're going to bust you for cheating regardless of whether you used it or not. There is no way of knowing whether you got the information properly or were using it from your improper source, so the presumption is that you cheated.

The difference between using a camera and using a player is that the player that left the team did so because the team terminated his contract. Therefore, they can do nothing if that player decides to sign with another team. Since the player couldn't possibly unlearn what they know, they're free to spill the beans to the other team. If the team that let the player go doesn't want the player to sign with another team and give out info, they can keep him under contract. On the other hand, having the tape of the signals not only gives you insight into the plays they're calling that game, but you can also catalog those tapes, compare them season to season, and start noticing tendencies that coaches have in their signals. It makes the code easier to crack down the road.

registerthis
09-20-2007, 02:53 PM
Okay, that's a lot worse, but the punishment you're asking for is totally unrealistic. Goodell doesn't have a guaranteed lifetime contract as NFL dictator, and Kraft isn't the only backer he'd lose if he did anything like that.

Hence my criticism of Goodell. Either you come forth and make it known that this type of behavior absolutely is not tolerated, or you cave in to lesser punishments. Suspending Belichick for the year and depriving the team of multiple draft picks *shouldn't* have been an unrealistic option, but I'm sure Goodell viewed it that way.