Belichick Wins Coach of the Year (1 Viewer)

[Whizzinator]

Here are some of the league's rules regarding videotaping procedures:

In the NFL's operations manual, it 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." Furthermore, all video shooting locations for coaching purposes "must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "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."

In the league's Constitution & Bylaws, it reads: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

It just occured to me that the memo they kept talking about came out a year prior. I always thought it came out right before the season started.Is this thread getting off track some? just curious.

A little, but my point is, taping signals was cheating, just like a failed drug test for 'roids is cheating, and illegal under the rule of the league. One gets punished by losing out on post-season honors, the other does not, but there is not difference between the two in my mind. Cheating is cheating...

There is no difference, in your mind, between using steroids and breaking some obscure league rule about videotaping on sidelines? Really? You don't think that's just a little misguided? Would you sentence a jaywalker to death row as if he was a murderer, 'cause "cheating is cheating"?

Obscure rule ? They felt strongly enough about it to send a memo to all the teams in the league so they were aware that taping other teams signals was prohibited. You act like the Pats got caught using stick 'um It was big time cheating bro, like it or not, they fine the coach $250,000 and should have taken both first rounders...

Using past sal cap violations as an example they overpenalized the Pats, not underpenalized, and that's ignoring that sal cap violations have a far larger impact on play.Not saying the Pats didnt' break the rules---they did---just trying to bring some factual context to how you characterize the violation. Making up penalties wholly out of line with NFL practices does not help the discussion, imo.

 

[Sheriff66]

Here are some of the league's rules regarding videotaping procedures:

In the NFL's operations manual, it 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." Furthermore, all video shooting locations for coaching purposes "must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "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."

In the league's Constitution & Bylaws, it reads: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

It just occured to me that the memo they kept talking about came out a year prior. I always thought it came out right before the season started.Is this thread getting off track some? just curious.

A little, but my point is, taping signals was cheating, just like a failed drug test for 'roids is cheating, and illegal under the rule of the league. One gets punished by losing out on post-season honors, the other does not, but there is not difference between the two in my mind. Cheating is cheating...

There is no difference, in your mind, between using steroids and breaking some obscure league rule about videotaping on sidelines? Really? You don't think that's just a little misguided? Would you sentence a jaywalker to death row as if he was a murderer, 'cause "cheating is cheating"?

Obscure rule ? They felt strongly enough about it to send a memo to all the teams in the league so they were aware that taping other teams signals was prohibited. You act like the Pats got caught using stick 'um It was big time cheating bro, like it or not, they fine the coach $250,000 and should have taken both first rounders...

Using past sal cap violations as an example they overpenalized the Pats, not underpenalized, and that's ignoring that sal cap violations have a far larger impact on play.Not saying the Pats didnt' break the rules---they did---just trying to bring some factual context to how you characterize the violation. Making up penalties wholly out of line with NFL practices does not help the discussion, imo.

No, they under penalized the cap violators. I think they should have hammered the Broncos and 9ers for those violations, big time, so we at least agree there.

 

[Sheriff66]

I've been nothing but respectful in this thread,

Yeah, outside of completely derailing and hijacking it for your soapbox rants, totally respectful. Just like your boy, Anthony.

Troll away buddy, troll away.

 

[twitch]

Twitch, I'm not trying to fight with you, you seem like a good dude, so don't think i'm trying to get in a pissing match here.

Now....

You said it is not illegal to tape signals above, correct ?

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

Where am I misinterpreting things ? I never said teams can't tape game footage, I said they can't tape signals. It's illegal by the leagues rules, just like steroids.

Thanks, S, and I feel the same for you. We're just having a slight disagreement here. Good luck to your boys tonight, btw. My point is simple and straight about the taping of signals. If the taping of signals were absolutely illegal, the rule or the bylaws would simply read that way. It wouldnt mention coaches' booths or on field locations or locker rooms or any of the sort. It would simply read, "videotaping aimed at opposing coaches signaling in plays from any location is prohibited". Its been employed in the league long enough that theyve had plenty of time to word it exactly the way they want. And if it were 100% illegal, they wouldnt need to use terms like, "including but not limited to". Those words make it possible to tape. But, again, not from the sidelines and not to be utilized during the game. But the general use of videotaping or taping coach's signals is not strictly illegal. Belichick tried to be a wise guy and be defiant and he paid the price. Heck, he wasnt trying to hide anything. The camera was obviously out in plain view for anyone to see. He knew the rule. He just disregarded it. I think it may have been personal between he and Mangini. Who knows? But I just havent read in any of the material Ive seen over the past 4 months where it states anywhere that taping coaching signals is strictly illegal.

 

[Sheriff66]

Twitch, I'm not trying to fight with you, you seem like a good dude, so don't think i'm trying to get in a pissing match here.

Now....

You said it is not illegal to tape signals above, correct ?

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

Where am I misinterpreting things ? I never said teams can't tape game footage, I said they can't tape signals. It's illegal by the leagues rules, just like steroids.

Thanks, S, and I feel the same for you. We're just having a slight disagreement here. Good luck to your boys tonight, btw. My point is simple and straight about the taping of signals. If the taping of signals were absolutely illegal, the rule or the bylaws would simply read that way. It wouldnt mention coaches' booths or on field locations or locker rooms or any of the sort. It would simply read, "videotaping aimed at opposing coaches signaling in plays from any location is prohibited". Its been employed in the league long enough that theyve had plenty of time to word it exactly the way they want. And if it were 100% illegal, they wouldnt need to use terms like, "including but not limited to". Those words make it possible to tape. But, again, not from the sidelines and not to be utilized during the game. But the general use of videotaping or taping coach's signals is not strictly illegal. Belichick tried to be a wise guy and be defiant and he paid the price. Heck, he wasnt trying to hide anything. The camera was obviously out in plain view for anyone to see. He knew the rule. He just disregarded it. I think it may have been personal between he and Mangini. Who knows? But I just havent read in any of the material Ive seen over the past 4 months where it states anywhere that taping coaching signals is strictly illegal.

Thanks Twitch, we're gonna need to bring it tonight...but hopefully the good guys can pull it out....

 

[Road Warriors]

Twitch, I'm not trying to fight with you, you seem like a good dude, so don't think i'm trying to get in a pissing match here.

Now....

You said it is not illegal to tape signals above, correct ?

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

Where am I misinterpreting things ? I never said teams can't tape game footage, I said they can't tape signals. It's illegal by the leagues rules, just like steroids.

Thanks, S, and I feel the same for you. We're just having a slight disagreement here. Good luck to your boys tonight, btw. My point is simple and straight about the taping of signals. If the taping of signals were absolutely illegal, the rule or the bylaws would simply read that way. It wouldnt mention coaches' booths or on field locations or locker rooms or any of the sort. It would simply read, "videotaping aimed at opposing coaches signaling in plays from any location is prohibited". Its been employed in the league long enough that theyve had plenty of time to word it exactly the way they want. And if it were 100% illegal, they wouldnt need to use terms like, "including but not limited to". Those words make it possible to tape. But, again, not from the sidelines and not to be utilized during the game. But the general use of videotaping or taping coach's signals is not strictly illegal. Belichick tried to be a wise guy and be defiant and he paid the price. Heck, he wasnt trying to hide anything. The camera was obviously out in plain view for anyone to see. He knew the rule. He just disregarded it. I think it may have been personal between he and Mangini. Who knows? But I just havent read in any of the material Ive seen over the past 4 months where it states anywhere that taping coaching signals is strictly illegal.

My read on the rules is that the videotaping of signals is prohibited, and the location limitations are directed to game film shots. I agree that the wording could be a lot more concise and concrete, but most rulebooks read this way. In the memo, the rules were clarified further.

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."

The way this is worded could be clearer, I agree. But in the end, videotaping of any type, including ... opponents ... signals, is prohbited, < here, there, or > at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.

I left out elements of the overall statement, but these, especially the final portion, tell me that taping opponents signals from anywhere the staff can get to is prohibited.

I can absolutely understand the position that under the circumstances that BB should have been ineligible for the award.

I can also understand the position that this award is not NFL controlled, and therefore beyond the scope of the commissioner's office to deem ineligible.

For the most part, I think the taping was overblown, and I think the penalty was much more used as an example for disregarding highlighted league policy ( ignoring the memo ) much like spanking a willful child for disobeying. I don't believe the severity of the punishment really relates to the seriousness of the crime. However, I also don't think that there is any real ambiguity to the rule that the Patriots broke here.

Sorry to jump into y'allls conversation, but I thought I'd throw a 3rd opinion into the mix.

 

[Sheriff66]

Twitch, I'm not trying to fight with you, you seem like a good dude, so don't think i'm trying to get in a pissing match here.

Now....

You said it is not illegal to tape signals above, correct ?

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

Where am I misinterpreting things ? I never said teams can't tape game footage, I said they can't tape signals. It's illegal by the leagues rules, just like steroids.

Thanks, S, and I feel the same for you. We're just having a slight disagreement here. Good luck to your boys tonight, btw. My point is simple and straight about the taping of signals. If the taping of signals were absolutely illegal, the rule or the bylaws would simply read that way. It wouldnt mention coaches' booths or on field locations or locker rooms or any of the sort. It would simply read, "videotaping aimed at opposing coaches signaling in plays from any location is prohibited". Its been employed in the league long enough that theyve had plenty of time to word it exactly the way they want. And if it were 100% illegal, they wouldnt need to use terms like, "including but not limited to". Those words make it possible to tape. But, again, not from the sidelines and not to be utilized during the game. But the general use of videotaping or taping coach's signals is not strictly illegal. Belichick tried to be a wise guy and be defiant and he paid the price. Heck, he wasnt trying to hide anything. The camera was obviously out in plain view for anyone to see. He knew the rule. He just disregarded it. I think it may have been personal between he and Mangini. Who knows? But I just havent read in any of the material Ive seen over the past 4 months where it states anywhere that taping coaching signals is strictly illegal.

My read on the rules is that the videotaping of signals is prohibited, and the location limitations are directed to game film shots. I agree that the wording could be a lot more concise and concrete, but most rulebooks read this way. In the memo, the rules were clarified further.

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."

The way this is worded could be clearer, I agree. But in the end, videotaping of any type, including ... opponents ... signals, is prohbited, < here, there, or > at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.

I left out elements of the overall statement, but these, especially the final portion, tell me that taping opponents signals from anywhere the staff can get to is prohibited.

I can absolutely understand the position that under the circumstances that BB should have been ineligible for the award.

I can also understand the position that this award is not NFL controlled, and therefore beyond the scope of the commissioner's office to deem ineligible.

For the most part, I think the taping was overblown, and I think the penalty was much more used as an example for disregarding highlighted league policy ( ignoring the memo ) much like spanking a willful child for disobeying. I don't believe the severity of the punishment really relates to the seriousness of the crime. However, I also don't think that there is any real ambiguity to the rule that the Patriots broke here.

Sorry to jump into y'allls conversation, but I thought I'd throw a 3rd opinion into the mix.

I'm not ripping Twitch, but the above bolded part seemed pretty darn clear to me, don't understand how that could be misinterpreted.

 

[twitch]

Twitch, I'm not trying to fight with you, you seem like a good dude, so don't think i'm trying to get in a pissing match here.

Now....

You said it is not illegal to tape signals above, correct ?

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

Where am I misinterpreting things ? I never said teams can't tape game footage, I said they can't tape signals. It's illegal by the leagues rules, just like steroids.

Thanks, S, and I feel the same for you. We're just having a slight disagreement here. Good luck to your boys tonight, btw. My point is simple and straight about the taping of signals. If the taping of signals were absolutely illegal, the rule or the bylaws would simply read that way. It wouldnt mention coaches' booths or on field locations or locker rooms or any of the sort. It would simply read, "videotaping aimed at opposing coaches signaling in plays from any location is prohibited". Its been employed in the league long enough that theyve had plenty of time to word it exactly the way they want. And if it were 100% illegal, they wouldnt need to use terms like, "including but not limited to". Those words make it possible to tape. But, again, not from the sidelines and not to be utilized during the game. But the general use of videotaping or taping coach's signals is not strictly illegal. Belichick tried to be a wise guy and be defiant and he paid the price. Heck, he wasnt trying to hide anything. The camera was obviously out in plain view for anyone to see. He knew the rule. He just disregarded it. I think it may have been personal between he and Mangini. Who knows? But I just havent read in any of the material Ive seen over the past 4 months where it states anywhere that taping coaching signals is strictly illegal.

My read on the rules is that the videotaping of signals is prohibited, and the location limitations are directed to game film shots. I agree that the wording could be a lot more concise and concrete, but most rulebooks read this way. In the memo, the rules were clarified further.

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."

The way this is worded could be clearer, I agree. But in the end, videotaping of any type, including ... opponents ... signals, is prohbited, < here, there, or > at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.

I left out elements of the overall statement, but these, especially the final portion, tell me that taping opponents signals from anywhere the staff can get to is prohibited.

I can absolutely understand the position that under the circumstances that BB should have been ineligible for the award.

I can also understand the position that this award is not NFL controlled, and therefore beyond the scope of the commissioner's office to deem ineligible.

For the most part, I think the taping was overblown, and I think the penalty was much more used as an example for disregarding highlighted league policy ( ignoring the memo ) much like spanking a willful child for disobeying. I don't believe the severity of the punishment really relates to the seriousness of the crime. However, I also don't think that there is any real ambiguity to the rule that the Patriots broke here.

Sorry to jump into y'allls conversation, but I thought I'd throw a 3rd opinion into the mix.

I'm not ripping Twitch, but the above bolded part seemed pretty darn clear to me, don't understand how that could be misinterpreted.

referring to the bolded. It cites specific locations to be included as illegal. That rule simply does not mention all possible legal locations because Im sure it could be a long list considering all it needs to be is something with a roof over top and enclosed, and inaccessible to coaches during the game. That's the bottom line intention with this rule. Not that taping is completely illegal, but that it isnt used DURING the game.

 

[Baby New Year]

I'd be interested to know why there was a memo sent to every team in the league about this and not every rule in the book. Also, why is it I never see Steelers on the sidelines shooting up steroids in full view of everyone? I'd also be interested to know if certain people would still be talking spamming about this nonissue if it were another team.

 

[freelander]

Hey BB's a genius, right?? So its pretty much a guarantee he wasn't cheating and not getting anything from it... doubt it was obscure to him. Both infractions destroy the integrity of the game.

Or, it could be a few malcontent Squeelers fans trolling another Pats thread crying about it, living up to their reputation. Hey, this isn't Anthony Smith, by any chance, is it?

Not that you're worth it, but I was born, raised and live in Baltimore. Not a huge Raven fan nor huge Steeler fan. Just a general fan of football. Sorry to bust your Steeler hatred bubble.

 

[Sheriff66]

I'd be interested to know why there was a memo sent to every team in the league about this and not every rule in the book. Also, why is it I never see Steelers on the sidelines shooting up steroids in full view of everyone? I'd also be interested to know if certain people would still be talking spamming about this nonissue if it were another team.

:ignore:

 

[Ghost Rider]

I respect what the Colts did. But, it wasn't 16-0. They had a chance to beat the Pats, but didn't. The only thing the Colts missed during the year that the Pats didn't was Harrison. a big cog, surely.

Were the Patriots missing both starting offensive tackles when they played the Colts?

But, the difference being the Pats finished 16-0, and the Colts 13-3.

Okay, but the award doesn't automatically go to the coach of the team with the best record.

Everybody has injuries.

True, but the Colts were hurt badly by injuries this year. The fact that they finished 13-3 is a tremendous credit to Tony Dungy.

 

[fred_1_15301]

I'd be interested to know why there was a memo sent to every team in the league about this and not every rule in the book. Also, why is it I never see Steelers on the sidelines shooting up steroids in full view of everyone? I'd also be interested to know if certain people would still be talking spamming about this nonissue if it were another team.

Wow you really hate the Steelers...... . Get over it man....you'll sleep much better at night.

 

[Baby New Year]

Like I said earlier, when I obsessively spam every Steelers thread on the board all day long, then you can talk. Until then, go take a seat on the bench with the other mouth.

 

[jscout]

Read this from the Boston paper then get back to me with your thoughts.

In the league's Constitution & Bylaws, it reads: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "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."

Hey Sheriff, thanks for posting this. I just want to throw out there that there is a theory among the Boston media that BB was videotaping with the bolded part in mind. In other words, BB was videotaping not to use during that particular game, which the rule explicitly states, but for his file for later study. IMHO, it's generally not in BB's character to cheat, but it is in his character to find loopholes in the rules and exploit them to his benefit.

ETA: There's been a lot of discussion of BB's lack of "class". On the flipside, one could also argue that by shutting up, not making excuses, and taking his medicine without defending himself represents at least some class.



I guess that makes four cents.

 

[fred_1_15301]

Like I said earlier, when I obsessively spam every Steelers thread on the board all day long, then you can talk. Until then, go take a seat on the bench with the other mouth.

Sorry when you use the word "Squeeler" to describe a fanbase, you're a hater. Ironic considering all your rantings in this thread. Keep the hate coming though......

 

[Ghost Rider]

Baby New Year = Footballg, the Patriots homer (who not coincidentally is in love with the word "hater" as much as this new guy is) who was banned this past week

Odd that the mods haven't banned him again yet, as I wouldn't think a banned person would be allowed to come back under a different handle this quickly.

 

[fred_1_15301]

Read this from the Boston paper then get back to me with your thoughts.

In the league's Constitution & Bylaws, it reads: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "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."

Hey Sheriff, thanks for posting this. I just want to throw out there that there is a theory among the Boston media that BB was videotaping with the bolded part in mind. In other words, BB was videotaping not to use during that particular game, which the rule explicitly states, but for his file for later study. IMHO, it's generally not in BB's character to cheat, but it is in his character to find loopholes in the rules and exploit them to his benefit.

With all due respect here since you seem like one of the rational patriots fans on the board but how do you know anything about BB's character and willingness to cheat? Do you know the guy personally?

 

[freelander]

Read this from the Boston paper then get back to me with your thoughts.

In the league's Constitution & Bylaws, it reads: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "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."

Hey Sheriff, thanks for posting this. I just want to throw out there that there is a theory among the Boston media that BB was videotaping with the bolded part in mind. In other words, BB was videotaping not to use during that particular game, which the rule explicitly states, but for his file for later study. IMHO, it's generally not in BB's character to cheat, but it is in his character to find loopholes in the rules and exploit them to his benefit.

ETA: There's been a lot of discussion of BB's lack of "class". On the flipside, one could also argue that by shutting up, not making excuses, and taking his medicine without defending himself represents at least some class.



I guess that makes four cents.

5 cents for the confiscation of BB's taping file. Who knows how big that baby is...

 

[jscout]

Read this from the Boston paper then get back to me with your thoughts.

In the league's Constitution & Bylaws, it reads: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "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."

Hey Sheriff, thanks for posting this. I just want to throw out there that there is a theory among the Boston media that BB was videotaping with the bolded part in mind. In other words, BB was videotaping not to use during that particular game, which the rule explicitly states, but for his file for later study. IMHO, it's generally not in BB's character to cheat, but it is in his character to find loopholes in the rules and exploit them to his benefit.

With all due respect here since you seem like one of the rational patriots fans on the board but how do you know anything about BB's character and willingness to cheat? Do you know the guy personally?

Point taken. But that's why I said "IMHO," because that's all it is. I just wanted to raise a point that I haven't seen emphasized on the board but was discussed on local sports radio by people (writers, former players) who do know BB.

 

[fred_1_15301]

Read this from the Boston paper then get back to me with your thoughts.

In the league's Constitution & Bylaws, it reads: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "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."

Hey Sheriff, thanks for posting this. I just want to throw out there that there is a theory among the Boston media that BB was videotaping with the bolded part in mind. In other words, BB was videotaping not to use during that particular game, which the rule explicitly states, but for his file for later study. IMHO, it's generally not in BB's character to cheat, but it is in his character to find loopholes in the rules and exploit them to his benefit.

With all due respect here since you seem like one of the rational patriots fans on the board but how do you know anything about BB's character and willingness to cheat? Do you know the guy personally?

Point taken. But that's why I said "IMHO," because that's all it is. I just wanted to raise a point that I haven't seen emphasized on the board but was discussed on local sports radio by people (writers, former players) who do know BB.

Fair enough and at least that provides some credibility......

 

[BigSteelThrill]

This is where you are very wrong.....it is 100% illegal to tape signals from anywhere, period.

Dropping knowledge.Some "people" argue without even know what they are discussing.

 

[Baby New Year]

....."

.....Why'd ya leave out this part?

That's a good question. I'd also like to know why he needs to selectively pick and choose lines.I smell a hater..........

As pissed of as I am about this loss, I hate the Pats that much more...

I'm better than Toucan Sam. Mods - once we identify a Pats hater could we plz get this put in their info for easy future identification?TIA

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Waiting for all the detractors to bash him.

My feeling is this and I said it way earlier in the season. When the spygate thing happened and the fine/sentencing came down, I felt that he should have received additionally not being eligible for end of the year honors at his position, which is coach.He was found cheating, which is not debatable.So, since it was NOT part of the consequence then it's a no brainer to give him the award but I think it was an oversight on Goodell's part not thinking ahead.I'd like to be the reporter asking Goodell, "So what's it like to give the coach of the year award to the same guy that got caught cheating that year?"

 

[Bill Lust]

Waiting for all the detractors to bash him.

My feeling is this and I said it way earlier in the season. When the spygate thing happened and the fine/sentencing came down, I felt that he should have received additionally not being eligible for end of the year honors at his position, which is coach.He was found cheating, which is not debatable.So, since it was NOT part of the consequence then it's a no brainer to give him the award but I think it was an oversight on Goodell's part not thinking ahead.I'd like to be the reporter asking Goodell, "So what's it like to give the coach of the year award to the same guy that got caught cheating that year?"

Goddell and the NFL have nothing to do with the award. It is chosen by the Associated Press. If you think that Belichick should be ineligible because he broke the rules, then that it is a perfectly legitimate opinion. However, I do not think that this represents any oversight on the part of Goodell at all.

 

[Jercules]

Just to get away from all this cheating nonsense for a moment.... Anybody watching the Steelers/Jags game last night saw a great example of embarrassingly bad coaching. Tomlin going for 2 after a 10 yard holding penalty, Del Rio calling a challenge out of wishful thinking (at a time when the Jags desperately needed their timeouts), Tomlin's super conservative playcalling that gave Jax the ball back....

You can hate Bill Belichick with your heart and soul, but you'd be hard-pressed to find an example of him trying to piss away a playoff game like those two geniuses were last night. Too bad I'm talking to nobody but A) Pats fans, and B) the only 3 people left in the world that give a rat's ### about spygate.

 

[thayman]

Just to get away from all this cheating nonsense for a moment.... Anybody watching the Steelers/Jags game last night saw a great example of embarrassingly bad coaching. Tomlin going for 2 after a 10 yard holding penalty, Del Rio calling a challenge out of wishful thinking (at a time when the Jags desperately needed their timeouts), Tomlin's super conservative playcalling that gave Jax the ball back....

You can hate Bill Belichick with your heart and soul, but you'd be hard-pressed to find an example of him trying to piss away a playoff game like those two geniuses were last night. Too bad I'm talking to nobody but A) Pats fans, and B) the only 3 people left in the world that give a rat's ### about spygate.

I think spygate is on Belichick's mind at least a little bit. Just my impression of the guy in news interviews and such, he just looks like the type that really wants to play with a chip on his shoulder. This Patriots team is different to me this year than in years past. Good for them, they deserve what they have done this year.

 

[pecorino]

i'm not going through 7 pages of this stuff but i'd like to say that BB is clearly the best coach in the league. no question about it in my mind. i personally would not have voted for him because of the cheating thing (i'm one of the 3 who actually still care).

and while i'm on topic, i think they should wait until after the season is over to crown the best coach. if and when dungy's colts or mccarthy's pack win the super bowl, shouldn't that mean something for best coach of the year?

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Waiting for all the detractors to bash him.

My feeling is this and I said it way earlier in the season. When the spygate thing happened and the fine/sentencing came down, I felt that he should have received additionally not being eligible for end of the year honors at his position, which is coach.He was found cheating, which is not debatable.So, since it was NOT part of the consequence then it's a no brainer to give him the award but I think it was an oversight on Goodell's part not thinking ahead.I'd like to be the reporter asking Goodell, "So what's it like to give the coach of the year award to the same guy that got caught cheating that year?"

Goddell and the NFL have nothing to do with the award. It is chosen by the Associated Press. If you think that Belichick should be ineligible because he broke the rules, then that it is a perfectly legitimate opinion. However, I do not think that this represents any oversight on the part of Goodell at all.

I guess I didn't know that the NFL didn't have anything to do with the award, maybe that's why it didn't happen.Something just doesn't seem right regardless of how good his record was........if you're found cheating and it cost your team a draft pick and fined 1/2 million dollars, you don't win coach of the year the same year.Maybe it's just me.

 

[Baby New Year]

I think spygate is on Belichick's mind at least a little bit. Just my impression of the guy in news interviews and such, he just looks like the type that really wants to play with a chip on his shoulder. This Patriots team is different to me this year than in years past.

OMG CHIP ON HIS SHOULDER!!!They look pretty much the same to me.

 

[thayman]

I think spygate is on Belichick's mind at least a little bit. Just my impression of the guy in news interviews and such, he just looks like the type that really wants to play with a chip on his shoulder. This Patriots team is different to me this year than in years past.

OMG CHIP ON HIS SHOULDER!!!They look pretty much the same to me.

They have more of a swagger this year. At least that is my impression. I'm not a huge BB fan, but I do know he can keep his team from being complacent better than any other coach in the NFL.

 

[Green and Gold]

I respect what the Colts did. But, it wasn't 16-0. They had a chance to beat the Pats, but didn't. The only thing the Colts missed during the year that the Pats didn't was Harrison. a big cog, surely.

Were the Patriots missing both starting offensive tackles when they played the Colts?

But, the difference being the Pats finished 16-0, and the Colts 13-3.

Okay, but the award doesn't automatically go to the coach of the team with the best record.

Everybody has injuries.

True, but the Colts were hurt badly by injuries this year. The fact that they finished 13-3 is a tremendous credit to Tony Dungy.

Yes, the Colts were hurt by injuries, and their continued winning is a credit to Dungy. But you have to understand when Pats fans roll their eyes a bit when they read about it. The Patriots have been destroyed with injuries in the past several years, but we were told, "Everyone has injuries" then too. Heck, take a look at the starting lineup of the Pats in the 2nd half of the AFCCG last year. Pats fans tend to whine about it a bit too much considering they had an 18 point cushion to work with, but it doesn't make it any less true. If you want 'credit' for your team overcoming injuries, you have to give the same to the other side.

 

[Baby New Year]

I think spygate is on Belichick's mind at least a little bit. Just my impression of the guy in news interviews and such, he just looks like the type that really wants to play with a chip on his shoulder. This Patriots team is different to me this year than in years past.

OMG CHIP ON HIS SHOULDER!!!They look pretty much the same to me.

They have more of a swagger this year. At least that is my impression. I'm not a huge BB fan, but I do know he can keep his team from being complacent better than any other coach in the NFL.

Yeah, I've just been bombarded by that phrase all season and it's getting a little tired. Last year Pats probably had , like, 15 guys on IR, their receiving corps consisted of Doug Gabriel, Reche Caldwell, and a recently signed Gaffney who turned into their #1. Despite all this they managed to score 28+ in about half their games, including a couple 40's late in the year. Now, in the offseason they sign Stallworth, Welker, and Moss............right here it's time for Madden football. But when they start torching the NFL it's simultaneous with that ####### 'spygate' so some ESPN gossip columnist throws that 'chip on their shoulder' chum in the water and all these people who've probably never seen a Pats game before this year have to endlessly repeat it.What cracks me up is when they go for it on 4th, pile up points, have Brady throwing late in the game, etc, all these people hop up and down about the 'chip on the shoulder' like they just started doing that stuff yesterday. Last year when BB gave us THE BLUEPRINT to beating that tough Minny D by throwing from shotgun every play, Brady was in there throwing away late and Belichick was a genius ---- this year he's got a chip on his shoulder. ....and you wonder why he's so terse with the jackass national media.I wouldn't be surprised if they had more of a swagger, but destroying every team you face the first half of the season can do that.

 

[thayman]

I think spygate is on Belichick's mind at least a little bit. Just my impression of the guy in news interviews and such, he just looks like the type that really wants to play with a chip on his shoulder. This Patriots team is different to me this year than in years past.

OMG CHIP ON HIS SHOULDER!!!They look pretty much the same to me.

They have more of a swagger this year. At least that is my impression. I'm not a huge BB fan, but I do know he can keep his team from being complacent better than any other coach in the NFL.

Yeah, I've just been bombarded by that phrase all season and it's getting a little tired. Last year Pats probably had , like, 15 guys on IR, their receiving corps consisted of Doug Gabriel, Reche Caldwell, and a recently signed Gaffney who turned into their #1. Despite all this they managed to score 28+ in about half their games, including a couple 40's late in the year. Now, in the offseason they sign Stallworth, Welker, and Moss............right here it's time for Madden football. But when they start torching the NFL it's simultaneous with that ####### 'spygate' so some ESPN gossip columnist throws that 'chip on their shoulder' chum in the water and all these people who've probably never seen a Pats game before this year have to endlessly repeat it.What cracks me up is when they go for it on 4th, pile up points, have Brady throwing late in the game, etc, all these people hop up and down about the 'chip on the shoulder' like they just started doing that stuff yesterday. Last year when BB gave us THE BLUEPRINT to beating that tough Minny D by throwing from shotgun every play, Brady was in there throwing away late and Belichick was a genius ---- this year he's got a chip on his shoulder. ....and you wonder why he's so terse with the jackass national media.I wouldn't be surprised if they had more of a swagger, but destroying every team you face the first half of the season can do that.

You seem to take "chip on their shoulder" a bad way. I don't, the fact that they have accomplished so much, even with 15ish players on IR they come back every week fired up and ready to play. They never take a week off and regularly look to improve. To me that's impressive coaching.

 

[PatsFanCT]

QUICK. Who was Coach of the Year last season? or the previous year? or the year before that? Without looking it up. No searching. Anyone coming up with 2 of those answers off the top of their heads? Can you remember who the MVP was the past 3 seasons? Or the Superbowl champ? Betcha can. Point being, its not that big of a deal. Noone remembers COY. We remember MVPs and Superbowl Champs. And occasionally who led the league in rushing or which players had stellar years or who had the #1 pick. Come next March, no one will care. This isnt going to be some long standing message to little kids that cheaters get rewarded. I couldnt honestly go either way with this one. I can understand how he could be ineligible. I can also understand how he's already been punished pretty heavily, so he and his team have paid the price. The public scorn has obviously been the greatest punishment. Belichick also won the award back in '03, and I couldnt even recall that. Had to look it up. Yet, he didnt win it in '01 when his team won their first Superbowl with a 2nd year, 6th round backup QB. Don Shula won the year before the undefeated season, but NOT when his team went 17-0. Go figure. He's won the award. And Id bet every single one of his head coaching peers doesnt have a problem with it.

People will remember, the NFL shouldn't have allowed it to happen. If a player cheats (steroids) and gets caught, they cannot be named to the Pro Bowl, how is this different, seriously ? I'll hang up and listen....

Youre gonna have to assess that yourself because my opinion will likely differ from yours. But here's my take. Taping signals isnt illegal in the NFL. Taping signals from the sidelines is. Belichick was wrong in doing that. He paid the price. Is illegal steroid use allowed in the NFL if taken in certain locations? Can you juice up in the stands or in the privacy of your own home? You know the answer there. The NFL does not support illegal steroid use in any way, shape or form. There are dozens and dozens of NFL approved supplements and enhancers available to all players to enhance performance without juicing. In short, taping signals, allowed. Steroid use, not allowed. Does a 16-0 record NOT make it clear to you the level of significance attributed to taping coaching signals? I mean the primary theme all along has been that the taping gave them some edge over every other team in the league. Well, they havent benefitted from that one bit this year. How'd that turn out? Seriously. Steroids are harmful and dangerous and illegal in the NFL and far more damaging to any sport. But hey, that's just an opinion.

This is where you are very wrong.....Read this from the Boston paper then get back to me with your thoughts.

In the league's Constitution & Bylaws, it reads: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "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."

In the NFL's operations manual, it 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." Furthermore, all video shooting locations for coaching purposes "must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."Why'd ya leave out this part? I understand everything you provided. Im providing this nugget that supports what I said prior. And its from the same link. Like I said, taping from places accessible to coaches is illegal. Taping in general terms is not.

Here are the two quotes that matter...You said...."Taping signals isnt illegal in the NFL." Look up, it's there in bold

The NFL stated in 2006...."In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

it is 100% illegal to tape signals from anywhere, period.

The roof overhead thing I'm sure is to stop teams from taping anything but the field of play, from say an endzone view, for coaching purposes.

You are not correctly understanding how those rules read. In NO PLACE does it say taping 100% illegal. That is your OWN, entirely INCORRECT translation. The above reference I provided, from the link YOU provided, states pretty clearly that taping is allowed when properly located and not utilized by coaches DURING the game. Which as I said, Belichick was clearly in violation of. So, no argument here from me. Now, go find me a link where STEROID use is legal from various locations in the NFL. Now, I'll hang up and listen...

Rules are rules and the Pats clearly broke them and were rightfully punished for it. However, there seems to be a rather large handful of people here that seem to think what belichick did was an unforgivable, lone shooter, crime of the century type of infraction and toss the word "cheater" out like Belichick should be scorned with a scarlet letter.When the Jets were "caught" videotaping the Pats from the end zone, Goodell, or Aiello said it was perfectly legal for teams to film from there. Case closed and everybody was happy. It kind of contradicts what the memo said, and gives Belichicks "interpretation of the rules" some legs. I just find it odd that so many people feel so strongly about the Pats cheating when their own team may very well be doing the same, but from a legal position. Should every team who draws a flag for a blatant pass interference be labeled "cheaters"?

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

QUICK. Who was Coach of the Year last season? or the previous year? or the year before that? Without looking it up. No searching. Anyone coming up with 2 of those answers off the top of their heads? Can you remember who the MVP was the past 3 seasons? Or the Superbowl champ? Betcha can. Point being, its not that big of a deal. Noone remembers COY. We remember MVPs and Superbowl Champs. And occasionally who led the league in rushing or which players had stellar years or who had the #1 pick. Come next March, no one will care. This isnt going to be some long standing message to little kids that cheaters get rewarded. I couldnt honestly go either way with this one. I can understand how he could be ineligible. I can also understand how he's already been punished pretty heavily, so he and his team have paid the price. The public scorn has obviously been the greatest punishment. Belichick also won the award back in '03, and I couldnt even recall that. Had to look it up. Yet, he didnt win it in '01 when his team won their first Superbowl with a 2nd year, 6th round backup QB. Don Shula won the year before the undefeated season, but NOT when his team went 17-0. Go figure. He's won the award. And Id bet every single one of his head coaching peers doesnt have a problem with it.

People will remember, the NFL shouldn't have allowed it to happen. If a player cheats (steroids) and gets caught, they cannot be named to the Pro Bowl, how is this different, seriously ? I'll hang up and listen....

Youre gonna have to assess that yourself because my opinion will likely differ from yours. But here's my take. Taping signals isnt illegal in the NFL. Taping signals from the sidelines is. Belichick was wrong in doing that. He paid the price. Is illegal steroid use allowed in the NFL if taken in certain locations? Can you juice up in the stands or in the privacy of your own home? You know the answer there. The NFL does not support illegal steroid use in any way, shape or form. There are dozens and dozens of NFL approved supplements and enhancers available to all players to enhance performance without juicing. In short, taping signals, allowed. Steroid use, not allowed. Does a 16-0 record NOT make it clear to you the level of significance attributed to taping coaching signals? I mean the primary theme all along has been that the taping gave them some edge over every other team in the league. Well, they havent benefitted from that one bit this year. How'd that turn out? Seriously. Steroids are harmful and dangerous and illegal in the NFL and far more damaging to any sport. But hey, that's just an opinion.

This is where you are very wrong.....Read this from the Boston paper then get back to me with your thoughts.

In the league's Constitution & Bylaws, it reads: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "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."

In the NFL's operations manual, it 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." Furthermore, all video shooting locations for coaching purposes "must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."Why'd ya leave out this part? I understand everything you provided. Im providing this nugget that supports what I said prior. And its from the same link. Like I said, taping from places accessible to coaches is illegal. Taping in general terms is not.

Here are the two quotes that matter...You said...."Taping signals isnt illegal in the NFL." Look up, it's there in bold

The NFL stated in 2006...."In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

it is 100% illegal to tape signals from anywhere, period.

The roof overhead thing I'm sure is to stop teams from taping anything but the field of play, from say an endzone view, for coaching purposes.

You are not correctly understanding how those rules read. In NO PLACE does it say taping 100% illegal. That is your OWN, entirely INCORRECT translation. The above reference I provided, from the link YOU provided, states pretty clearly that taping is allowed when properly located and not utilized by coaches DURING the game. Which as I said, Belichick was clearly in violation of. So, no argument here from me. Now, go find me a link where STEROID use is legal from various locations in the NFL. Now, I'll hang up and listen...

Rules are rules and the Pats clearly broke them and were rightfully punished for it. However, there seems to be a rather large handful of people here that seem to think what belichick did was an unforgivable, lone shooter, crime of the century type of infraction and toss the word "cheater" out like Belichick should be scorned with a scarlet letter.When the Jets were "caught" videotaping the Pats from the end zone, Goodell, or Aiello said it was perfectly legal for teams to film from there. Case closed and everybody was happy. It kind of contradicts what the memo said, and gives Belichicks "interpretation of the rules" some legs. I just find it odd that so many people feel so strongly about the Pats cheating when their own team may very well be doing the same, but from a legal position. Should every team who draws a flag for a blatant pass interference be labeled "cheaters"?

That's a bit much.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Congratulations, legend.

 

[Raider Nation]

Wonder how this would have turned out if the voting took place after the Super Bowl.

 

[Filthy]

Wonder how this would have turned out if the voting took place after the Super Bowl.

Or after Goddell being more forthcoming about how far back the taping went.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Wonder how this would have turned out if the voting took place after the Super Bowl.

Or after Goddell being more forthcoming about how far back the taping went.

Belichick wins coach of the Year**

***For the regular season

 

[wharf rat]

Wonder how this would have turned out if the voting took place after the Super Bowl.

Coughlin - hands down.