ESPN, NFLNETWORK FALSE REPORTS about the Pats cheating (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

No, I understand. Like I said, Id just like everyone to know who the SOURCES are these guys are using . Im aware of how news is gathered. Im just pointing how unethical it is to do it until its actually NEWS. Like I said, REPORT news. Dont CREATE it. Its absolute speculation at this point, and basically alot of piling on. Why does waiting have to be so hard? They are the OFFICIAL source. And really the only source that should apply.

No, you really don't understand a damn thing about journalism. Really. I promise.

as long as you promise. who am I to argue with an all knower? Please, allow me to catch up to my herd.

He may not have been very nice in the way he said it but, if you don't understand the role of confidential sources in news gathering, then Keys is right.

I stopped trying to be nice about a year ago. If people's feelings are hurt, tough...but at least I'm making a point.

You don't have to be nice. But don't be an ### here. TIA.J

If at some point I'm over the top, I have no problem apologizing for it.I don't think I am. If at any point I wasn't welcome here, I'd gladly leave, JB.

No one is welcome that is consistently an ###. I don't think you are one. But just stating where are on things.J

 

[Franknbeans]

 

[Keys Myaths]

listening to the Cowherd show on ESPN radio. So, naturally he's beginning the full-blown bashfest. Hammering Belichick. Head coach, understandable. But then, "Brady knew about this. Brady knew about this". Huh? So, Brady is on the great conspiracy? Do we have film of Brady studying opponents hand signals, too. This is just the type of typical garbage I was getting at. Again, if the Pats get hammered by the NFL for cheating, and theyre made to forfeit a game, or several for that matter, or they lose picks, or get fined or all of the above, so be it. But listening to radio idiots call Tom Brady a cheat is wreckless, without merit, and completely intolerable.

But if this is true, we have to ask the question of who implented the information stolen, how the information was implented, and the execution of the information. It would seem most logical and most contained if it were Brady. Again, if this is true, Brady almost has to be guilty.

Yes. IF IF IF this is true that the Pats were using stolen signals to alert their guys to blitzes and coverages, Belichick likely isn't the only one culpable here.But right now, it's IF IF IF.

J

I disagree with the statement that Brady would be guilty, too.If he's receiving certain signals from the sidelines to tell him to run a certain play, why would he have to know that they were cheating to get the signals right? Why would he have to be in on it?

 

[Kit Fisto]

Maybe we should get a "Flame the Patriots" forum that way the Shark Pool can focus on Fantasy Football

Whaddsa matta, Pats fan? You don't like other people pointing out the fact that your team is a bunch of CHEATERS?

Is this coming from a Broncos fan, Mr. Glass House?

 

[Joe Bryant]

listening to the Cowherd show on ESPN radio. So, naturally he's beginning the full-blown bashfest. Hammering Belichick. Head coach, understandable. But then, "Brady knew about this. Brady knew about this". Huh? So, Brady is on the great conspiracy? Do we have film of Brady studying opponents hand signals, too. This is just the type of typical garbage I was getting at. Again, if the Pats get hammered by the NFL for cheating, and theyre made to forfeit a game, or several for that matter, or they lose picks, or get fined or all of the above, so be it. But listening to radio idiots call Tom Brady a cheat is wreckless, without merit, and completely intolerable.

But if this is true, we have to ask the question of who implented the information stolen, how the information was implented, and the execution of the information. It would seem most logical and most contained if it were Brady. Again, if this is true, Brady almost has to be guilty.

Yes. IF IF IF this is true that the Pats were using stolen signals to alert their guys to blitzes and coverages, Belichick likely isn't the only one culpable here.But right now, it's IF IF IF.

J

I disagree with the statement that Brady would be guilty, too.If he's receiving certain signals from the sidelines to tell him to run a certain play, why would he have to know that they were cheating to get the signals right? Why would he have to be in on it?

Tom Brady is not stupid. Do you think that if Belichick appears to be clairvoyant in predicting what stunts the linebackers are going to run and what coverages the secondary is in that he's going to think his coach is just really smart?J

 

[roadkill1292]

Oh, this new speculation that Brady was in on it is simply too delicious. This story just got really interesting.

 

[twitch]

Brady loves Oprah. For all we know, he's pumping old Oprah re-runs into that helmet. hate if you will, but accusing a guy like Brady of cheating is the beginning of the end of what we know and love. Im not going down that road.

 

[Keys Myaths]

listening to the Cowherd show on ESPN radio. So, naturally he's beginning the full-blown bashfest. Hammering Belichick. Head coach, understandable. But then, "Brady knew about this. Brady knew about this". Huh? So, Brady is on the great conspiracy? Do we have film of Brady studying opponents hand signals, too. This is just the type of typical garbage I was getting at. Again, if the Pats get hammered by the NFL for cheating, and theyre made to forfeit a game, or several for that matter, or they lose picks, or get fined or all of the above, so be it. But listening to radio idiots call Tom Brady a cheat is wreckless, without merit, and completely intolerable.

But if this is true, we have to ask the question of who implented the information stolen, how the information was implented, and the execution of the information. It would seem most logical and most contained if it were Brady. Again, if this is true, Brady almost has to be guilty.

Yes. IF IF IF this is true that the Pats were using stolen signals to alert their guys to blitzes and coverages, Belichick likely isn't the only one culpable here.But right now, it's IF IF IF.

J

I disagree with the statement that Brady would be guilty, too.If he's receiving certain signals from the sidelines to tell him to run a certain play, why would he have to know that they were cheating to get the signals right? Why would he have to be in on it?

Tom Brady is not stupid. Do you think that if Belichick appears to be clairvoyant in predicting what stunts the linebackers are going to run and what coverages the secondary is in that he's going to think his coach is just really smart?J

No.But I think plausible deniability holds here. Brady might have it in the back of his mind that it might be happening, but take it from both pairs of shoes.

From Brady's standpoint:

1. Would you really ask that question of your coach?

2. What advantage would you have by knowing they were cheating, rather than suspecting?

3. Wouldn't it be much easier/truthful to deny allegations if you never really knew for sure?

From Belichick's standpoint:

1. Why would Belichick tell him he was cheating? What purpose would that serve?

2. Why would he want to drag his star quarterback down with him if he got caught?

 

[apalmer]

listening to the Cowherd show on ESPN radio. So, naturally he's beginning the full-blown bashfest. Hammering Belichick. Head coach, understandable. But then, "Brady knew about this. Brady knew about this". Huh? So, Brady is on the great conspiracy? Do we have film of Brady studying opponents hand signals, too. This is just the type of typical garbage I was getting at. Again, if the Pats get hammered by the NFL for cheating, and theyre made to forfeit a game, or several for that matter, or they lose picks, or get fined or all of the above, so be it. But listening to radio idiots call Tom Brady a cheat is wreckless, without merit, and completely intolerable.

But if this is true, we have to ask the question of who implented the information stolen, how the information was implented, and the execution of the information. It would seem most logical and most contained if it were Brady. Again, if this is true, Brady almost has to be guilty.

Yes. IF IF IF this is true that the Pats were using stolen signals to alert their guys to blitzes and coverages, Belichick likely isn't the only one culpable here.But right now, it's IF IF IF.

J

I disagree with the statement that Brady would be guilty, too.If he's receiving certain signals from the sidelines to tell him to run a certain play, why would he have to know that they were cheating to get the signals right? Why would he have to be in on it?

Note that the comment was "probably" and "likely." If all he's getting is a play call, you're right and he's innocent. But, if you are the guy talking to him, do you just give him a play and risk having him audible out of it or do you make sure he knows what the D is doing so if he does audible he does it right? Again, this is something that can't automatically be presumed, but it's "probably" more likely than not.

 

[Shrek]

...listening to radio idiots call Tom Brady a cheat is wreckless...

Your misuse of the word "wreckless" here "wreaks" of idiocy.

It's also ironic that you would call out someone for misusing a word by misusing one yourself. Wreak

Reek

 

[twitch]

listening to the Cowherd show on ESPN radio. So, naturally he's beginning the full-blown bashfest. Hammering Belichick. Head coach, understandable. But then, "Brady knew about this. Brady knew about this". Huh? So, Brady is on the great conspiracy? Do we have film of Brady studying opponents hand signals, too. This is just the type of typical garbage I was getting at. Again, if the Pats get hammered by the NFL for cheating, and theyre made to forfeit a game, or several for that matter, or they lose picks, or get fined or all of the above, so be it. But listening to radio idiots call Tom Brady a cheat is wreckless, without merit, and completely intolerable.

But if this is true, we have to ask the question of who implented the information stolen, how the information was implented, and the execution of the information. It would seem most logical and most contained if it were Brady. Again, if this is true, Brady almost has to be guilty.

Yes. IF IF IF this is true that the Pats were using stolen signals to alert their guys to blitzes and coverages, Belichick likely isn't the only one culpable here.But right now, it's IF IF IF.

J

I disagree with the statement that Brady would be guilty, too.If he's receiving certain signals from the sidelines to tell him to run a certain play, why would he have to know that they were cheating to get the signals right? Why would he have to be in on it?

Tom Brady is not stupid. Do you think that if Belichick appears to be clairvoyant in predicting what stunts the linebackers are going to run and what coverages the secondary is in that he's going to think his coach is just really smart?J

Joe, Ive gotta say if Brady is smart, dont you think he'd stand up, albeit behind closed doors, against something that could absolutely ruin his career? and basically his LIFE? BB has coached in 6 Superbowls and owns 5 rings. Brady may just think that BB is a fairly smart guy himself.

 

[Joe Bryant]

listening to the Cowherd show on ESPN radio. So, naturally he's beginning the full-blown bashfest. Hammering Belichick. Head coach, understandable. But then, "Brady knew about this. Brady knew about this". Huh? So, Brady is on the great conspiracy? Do we have film of Brady studying opponents hand signals, too. This is just the type of typical garbage I was getting at. Again, if the Pats get hammered by the NFL for cheating, and theyre made to forfeit a game, or several for that matter, or they lose picks, or get fined or all of the above, so be it. But listening to radio idiots call Tom Brady a cheat is wreckless, without merit, and completely intolerable.

But if this is true, we have to ask the question of who implented the information stolen, how the information was implented, and the execution of the information. It would seem most logical and most contained if it were Brady. Again, if this is true, Brady almost has to be guilty.

Yes. IF IF IF this is true that the Pats were using stolen signals to alert their guys to blitzes and coverages, Belichick likely isn't the only one culpable here.But right now, it's IF IF IF.

J

I disagree with the statement that Brady would be guilty, too.If he's receiving certain signals from the sidelines to tell him to run a certain play, why would he have to know that they were cheating to get the signals right? Why would he have to be in on it?

Tom Brady is not stupid. Do you think that if Belichick appears to be clairvoyant in predicting what stunts the linebackers are going to run and what coverages the secondary is in that he's going to think his coach is just really smart?J

No.But I think plausible deniability holds here. Brady might have it in the back of his mind that it might be happening, but take it from both pairs of shoes.

From Brady's standpoint:

1. Would you really ask that question of your coach?

2. What advantage would you have by knowing they were cheating, rather than suspecting?

3. Wouldn't it be much easier/truthful to deny allegations if you never really knew for sure?

From Belichick's standpoint:

1. Why would Belichick tell him he was cheating? What purpose would that serve?

2. Why would he want to drag his star quarterback down with him if he got caught?

Sure, plausible deniability would likely play there. But right or wrong, we all know how well plausible deniability holds up in the court of public opinion. Which is a pretty big factor here.Again, all of this is speculation. As I said, it's IF IF IF the Patriots are proven to have been cheating. We're not there. We're to where Belichick's in enough hot water to get the call to the Principle's Office on Park Avenue. So it's not insignificant. But we're a long ways from "Pats proven cheating".

J

 

[Joe Bryant]

But to be fair, we were a long ways from Mike Vick going to jail the day they found all the dogs at his house too.

Stories develop.

J

 

[twitch]

...listening to radio idiots call Tom Brady a cheat is wreckless...

Your misuse of the word "wreckless" here "wreaks" of idiocy.

It's also ironic that you would call out someone for misusing a word by misusing one yourself. Wreak

Reek

right, NY, I got that. spelling was never my strawngsoot. Ill call myself an idiot on that one.

 

[BeachBums]

but I can't really see any point to saying what you said except to shut the guy up or blow your own horn about how brilliant you are. If you know so much about journalism, why not enlighten him? He made a legitimate argument, which I agree with, but the realities of the news biz, as with everything else in the world, is that it's all about $$. 'Nuf said, enjoy your day.

You had made the statement that you understood. You clearly didn't, and I didn't want people to become confused and think you actually did--mistakenly taking your statements as truth. They weren't.In management, the news business is all about the money. For individual reporters/etc., it's anything but. I'm not saying that their intentions are always pure, because they're not. But, if you knew what reporters/analysts/etc. got paid, except the upper echelon, you'd agree.

Go back and re-read the thread. I didn't post that I understood, twitch did. I jumped in when you ripped him about how much he didn't know about journalism.I've worked both sides of a news desk, so yeah, I get that being a reporter (or editor) isn't about money. My point is that the bottom line is readership and ratings which directly corresponds to advertising revenue. A reporter can be as pure as the driven snow in their intentions, but they don't make decisions about what runs or airs, management does. And the dollar comes first for management. Which is why, I think we both agree, using confidential sources ('creating news' as twitch said) will continue: to beat the competition and draw readers/viewers. And of course to uncover the truth.

 

[Sweet J]

Can someone please explain to me how videotaping a sideline coach is different that watching the coach from the stands and taking notes?

 

[twitch]

understood, but digging up dead dogs and digging inside the head of someone of Brady's stature and applying the 'cheat' tag seem quite a bit different. to me anyway.

 

[apalmer]

...listening to radio idiots call Tom Brady a cheat is wreckless...

Your misuse of the word "wreckless" here "wreaks" of idiocy.

It's also ironic that you would call out someone for misusing a word by misusing one yourself. Wreak

Reek

Of course, it's not irony if it's Parody.

 

[sho nuff]

Can someone please explain to me how videotaping a sideline coach is different that watching the coach from the stands and taking notes?

Can you analyze the notes later to match them up with specific things that happened in the game quite as easy? Nope.That and the Pats were warned about this...why do people continue to insist on making excuses and saying its not that bad this and that...its just like baseball...blah blah blah.The league, and even specifically the Patriots, were warned not to do this. The crux of the problem and what might get them more punishment than some people think is right is that they were told by the commish to quit this crap, and they did it anyway.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

Can someone please explain to me how videotaping a sideline coach is different that watching the coach from the stands and taking notes?

1. Its illegal, as determined by the NFL, and spotlighted in a league wide memo within the last month, probably in some sort of reaction to this same team being accused of the same infraction last year2. Its different because if you are watching a coach go through his sign progressions and you blink or you are wrong, you can verify and correct it via rewinding the videotape.

 

[Shrek]

...listening to radio idiots call Tom Brady a cheat is wreckless...

Your misuse of the word "wreckless" here "wreaks" of idiocy.

It's also ironic that you would call out someone for misusing a word by misusing one yourself. Wreak

Reek

Of course, it's not irony if it's Parody.

I think twitch covered this already.

 

[Sweet J]

Can someone please explain to me how videotaping a sideline coach is different that watching the coach from the stands and taking notes?

1. Its illegal, as determined by the NFL, and spotlighted in a league wide memo within the last month, probably in some sort of reaction to this same team being accused of the same infraction last year2. Its different because if you are watching a coach go through his sign progressions and you blink or you are wrong, you can verify and correct it via rewinding the videotape.

1. I guess you mean it is against NFL policy. If that is the case (I haven't seen the memo, nor the rule, so I will have to take your word for it), then breaking a rule is breaking a rule. I just have a hard time getting worked up over something like that. What's next, a prohibition of watching game tapes? If you can tape an entire field so you can break down the strategy, are you supposed to black-out the coach? It just seems silly.2. If you can WATCH a coach give his signals, then I don't have a problem with taping a coach give his signals.

 

[Sweet J]

Can someone please explain to me how videotaping a sideline coach is different that watching the coach from the stands and taking notes?

Can you analyze the notes later to match them up with specific things that happened in the game quite as easy? Nope.That and the Pats were warned about this...why do people continue to insist on making excuses and saying its not that bad this and that...its just like baseball...blah blah blah.The league, and even specifically the Patriots, were warned not to do this. The crux of the problem and what might get them more punishment than some people think is right is that they were told by the commish to quit this crap, and they did it anyway.

So the Pats were warned "don't try and watch opposing signals and guess what they mean?" Or just warned "don't videotape opposing coaches"? What happens if a game tape inadvertantly catches a coach giving signals? This outrage here is insane.

 

[glock]

listening to the Cowherd show on ESPN radio. So, naturally he's beginning the full-blown bashfest. Hammering Belichick. Head coach, understandable. But then, "Brady knew about this. Brady knew about this". Huh? So, Brady is on the great conspiracy? Do we have film of Brady studying opponents hand signals, too. This is just the type of typical garbage I was getting at. Again, if the Pats get hammered by the NFL for cheating, and theyre made to forfeit a game, or several for that matter, or they lose picks, or get fined or all of the above, so be it. But listening to radio idiots call Tom Brady a cheat is wreckless, without merit, and completely intolerable.

But if this is true, we have to ask the question of who implented the information stolen, how the information was implented, and the execution of the information. It would seem most logical and most contained if it were Brady. Again, if this is true, Brady almost has to be guilty.

Yes. IF IF IF this is true that the Pats were using stolen signals to alert their guys to blitzes and coverages, Belichick likely isn't the only one culpable here.But right now, it's IF IF IF.

J

I disagree with the statement that Brady would be guilty, too.If he's receiving certain signals from the sidelines to tell him to run a certain play, why would he have to know that they were cheating to get the signals right? Why would he have to be in on it?

Tom Brady is not stupid. Do you think that if Belichick appears to be clairvoyant in predicting what stunts the linebackers are going to run and what coverages the secondary is in that he's going to think his coach is just really smart?J

No.But I think plausible deniability holds here. Brady might have it in the back of his mind that it might be happening, but take it from both pairs of shoes.

From Brady's standpoint:

1. Would you really ask that question of your coach?

2. What advantage would you have by knowing they were cheating, rather than suspecting?

3. Wouldn't it be much easier/truthful to deny allegations if you never really knew for sure?

From Belichick's standpoint:

1. Why would Belichick tell him he was cheating? What purpose would that serve?

2. Why would he want to drag his star quarterback down with him if he got caught?

IF this whole scenario is true of course Brady would know about it. Everyone on the team would probably know about it. Why?

A-R-R-O-G-A-N-C-E: : an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions

It can make you blind to the possibility/probability that you will eventually get caught. Or if caught that you will actually get punished somehow.

 

[sho nuff]

If nothing was done wrong...why did Belichick apologize for it?

"Earlier this week, I spoke with Commissioner 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. 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."

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/

 

[sho nuff]

Can someone please explain to me how videotaping a sideline coach is different that watching the coach from the stands and taking notes?

Can you analyze the notes later to match them up with specific things that happened in the game quite as easy? Nope.That and the Pats were warned about this...why do people continue to insist on making excuses and saying its not that bad this and that...its just like baseball...blah blah blah.The league, and even specifically the Patriots, were warned not to do this. The crux of the problem and what might get them more punishment than some people think is right is that they were told by the commish to quit this crap, and they did it anyway.

So the Pats were warned "don't try and watch opposing signals and guess what they mean?" Or just warned "don't videotape opposing coaches"? What happens if a game tape inadvertantly catches a coach giving signals? This outrage here is insane.

The entire league was warned and there was apparently some specific warnings to the Pats to not video the signals.That is different than inadvertant game tape. There was a guy on the Jets freakin sideline who the Pats sent over there to tape the coaches.The idiotic defenses of these actions are what is insane.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

listening to the Cowherd show on ESPN radio. So, naturally he's beginning the full-blown bashfest. Hammering Belichick. Head coach, understandable. But then, "Brady knew about this. Brady knew about this". Huh? So, Brady is on the great conspiracy? Do we have film of Brady studying opponents hand signals, too. This is just the type of typical garbage I was getting at. Again, if the Pats get hammered by the NFL for cheating, and theyre made to forfeit a game, or several for that matter, or they lose picks, or get fined or all of the above, so be it. But listening to radio idiots call Tom Brady a cheat is wreckless, without merit, and completely intolerable.

But if this is true, we have to ask the question of who implented the information stolen, how the information was implented, and the execution of the information. It would seem most logical and most contained if it were Brady. Again, if this is true, Brady almost has to be guilty.

Yes. IF IF IF this is true that the Pats were using stolen signals to alert their guys to blitzes and coverages, Belichick likely isn't the only one culpable here.But right now, it's IF IF IF.

J

I disagree with the statement that Brady would be guilty, too.If he's receiving certain signals from the sidelines to tell him to run a certain play, why would he have to know that they were cheating to get the signals right? Why would he have to be in on it?

Tom Brady is not stupid. Do you think that if Belichick appears to be clairvoyant in predicting what stunts the linebackers are going to run and what coverages the secondary is in that he's going to think his coach is just really smart?J

No.But I think plausible deniability holds here. Brady might have it in the back of his mind that it might be happening, but take it from both pairs of shoes.

From Brady's standpoint:

1. Would you really ask that question of your coach?

2. What advantage would you have by knowing they were cheating, rather than suspecting?

3. Wouldn't it be much easier/truthful to deny allegations if you never really knew for sure?

From Belichick's standpoint:

1. Why would Belichick tell him he was cheating? What purpose would that serve?

2. Why would he want to drag his star quarterback down with him if he got caught?

This whole post is based on an assumption the Pats are found guilty of wrongdoing here, which they have not, but this is my hypothetical analysis.They are in a catch 22 here. On the one hand, I think Goodell, based on his short track record will prioritze swift and stern justice here, because the only thing he's more interested the perception of competitive righteousness and an image of honor for the league is to get this thing over with ASAP. Its not like these will be broadcast congressional hearings, the NFL is a dictatorship, so whoever hangs for the public will hang hard, but if it turns out a dozen AC's and two dozen players were in on this, I basically think its a "don't ask, don't tell" situation and the deeper investigation will lie. Brady is a top 3 golden boy for the league, with Manning and Bush, so I don' .t think anyone wants him to swing. Belichick's head on a platter(suspension, fine, sanction) and the draft picks is more than enough to satitate a public perception of cheating AND serve as a warning to all those that would violate this in the future.

BUT

The lack of looking deeper, and the lack of a "full disclosure" on the exact way this thing worked out, will leave that defacto cloud, where speculative discussions like this will always wonder about Tom Brady. Belichick may be stone guilty, and Brady may have been completely in the dark on this, but people will wonder for the rest of his career and probably the rest of his life. Brady would do well to add a ring or two to his collection to reenforce his legacy and establish that it was his skill and leadership that resulted in that success, and not the "Hand of Bill". If Brady never won another bowl, this debate will follow him.

Which is a shame, because I'd really been elevating him in my own my mind to Montana status, which is as high of a sports deity as you can be, and I'm probably not alone. And it had really been a modern day version of Montana versus Marino with Brady versus Peyton. Peyton had the numbers, but Brady had the rings and you raised him that much higher. IF THIS IS TRUE, it will be very hard to do that. And to tell you the truth, I think Belichick is an SOB, but I'd always respected Brady's scrappiness and his very existence being a testament to tenacity, that you could elevate from a 6th round draft pick to arguably the best QB of his generation. Now, if this is true, a reevulation will be necessary.

 

[Sweet J]

If nothing was done wrong...why did Belichick apologize for it?

If he broke a specific rule, he broke a rule. There is not much to say about it. But the fact that you guys are outraged by this strikes me as silly. Videotaping a coach? Please.

 

[Keys Myaths]

They are in a catch 22 here. On the one hand, I think Goodell, based on his short track record will prioritze swift and stern justice here, because the only thing he's more interested the perception of competitive righteousness and an image of honor for the league is to get this thing over with ASAP.

I'm sorry to cut out just a piece of what was a fantastic post, but do you disagree with this way of going about it? If so, why?

 

[sho nuff]

If nothing was done wrong...why did Belichick apologize for it?

If he broke a specific rule, he broke a rule. There is not much to say about it. But the fact that you guys are outraged by this strikes me as silly. Videotaping a coach? Please.

Im outraged that he has the audacity to continue a practice the league told him not to do.Im outraged that fans continue to make excuses for it.If I was the commish I would be outraged that a coach and team disobeyed a direct request to follow the rules and flaunted that crap in my face.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

Can someone please explain to me how videotaping a sideline coach is different that watching the coach from the stands and taking notes?

1. Its illegal, as determined by the NFL, and spotlighted in a league wide memo within the last month, probably in some sort of reaction to this same team being accused of the same infraction last year2. Its different because if you are watching a coach go through his sign progressions and you blink or you are wrong, you can verify and correct it via rewinding the videotape.

1. I guess you mean it is against NFL policy. If that is the case (I haven't seen the memo, nor the rule, so I will have to take your word for it), then breaking a rule is breaking a rule. I just have a hard time getting worked up over something like that. What's next, a prohibition of watching game tapes? If you can tape an entire field so you can break down the strategy, are you supposed to black-out the coach? It just seems silly.2. If you can WATCH a coach give his signals, then I don't have a problem with taping a coach give his signals.

I think in all sports, there is a respect for the human computer of the mind to break down and evaluate signs being stolen. But if you can't see the difference between video taping and doing it on sight, then I don't know what to tell you.Given one real time glance versus being able to rewind, review and disect the sign and you can't see the difference?

 

[Joe Bryant]

If nothing was done wrong...why did Belichick apologize for it?

"Earlier this week, I spoke with Commissioner 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. 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."

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/

I don't read anything into the "apology". It was a very carefully worded / don't say anything but let people know we're not hiding type thing.Belichick's a guy careful with his words. He said, " I want to apologize to everyone who has been affected" People have been affected by this turmoil. Innocent or guilty. He's apologizing for the turmoil. Not any actions he's guilty for.

J

 

[Sweet J]

I think in all sports, there is a respect for the human computer of the mind to break down and evaluate signs being stolen.

But if you can't see the difference between video taping and doing it on sight, then I don't know what to tell you.

Given one real time glance versus being able to rewind, review and disect the sign and you can't see the difference?

Is there a difference between watching the game from the sideline and being able to disect the game in videotape? Sure, but we allow it. I don't see the difference between allowing a coach to watch videotapes of the game, but not allowing a coach to watch a videotape of sideline coaches.

 

[Sweet J]

If nothing was done wrong...why did Belichick apologize for it?

If he broke a specific rule, he broke a rule. There is not much to say about it. But the fact that you guys are outraged by this strikes me as silly. Videotaping a coach? Please.

Im outraged that he has the audacity to continue a practice the league told him not to do.Im outraged that fans continue to make excuses for it.If I was the commish I would be outraged that a coach and team disobeyed a direct request to follow the rules and flaunted that crap in my face.

Hey, if he broke a specific league rule, then he gets punished. I just happen to think it is a bit of a silly rule. And I also have a feeling that the rule that he broke will turn out to be more ambiguous than people here are making it seem. But time will tell, I'm sure.

 

[Workhorse]

If nothing was done wrong...why did Belichick apologize for it?

"Earlier this week, I spoke with Commissioner 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. 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."

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/

I don't read anything into the "apology". It was a very carefully worded / don't say anything but let people know we're not hiding type thing.Belichick's a guy careful with his words. He said, " I want to apologize to everyone who has been affected" People have been affected by this turmoil. Innocent or guilty. He's apologizing for the turmoil. Not any actions he's guilty for.

J

I think you're 100% right. And it also leaves open the possibility that the Patriots thought there was some kind of loophole in the ACTUAL memo that was sent down by the league this offseason that they thought they might have been able to slip through.

 

[glock]

I think in all sports, there is a respect for the human computer of the mind to break down and evaluate signs being stolen.

But if you can't see the difference between video taping and doing it on sight, then I don't know what to tell you.

Given one real time glance versus being able to rewind, review and disect the sign and you can't see the difference?

Is there a difference between watching the game from the sideline and being able to disect the game in videotape? Sure, but we allow it. I don't see the difference between allowing a coach to watch videotapes of the game, but not allowing a coach to watch a videotape of sideline coaches.

Apparently the NFL considers it cheating and told all the teams to follow the guidelines. THAT is the difference.

 

[CrossEyed]

Nobody is talking that much about the radio frequencies. I think that makes this potentially a much bigger deal.

 

[Shrek]

Seriously, this thread title needs to be changed. It's definitely misleading.

 

[Sweet J]

I think in all sports, there is a respect for the human computer of the mind to break down and evaluate signs being stolen.

But if you can't see the difference between video taping and doing it on sight, then I don't know what to tell you.

Given one real time glance versus being able to rewind, review and disect the sign and you can't see the difference?

Is there a difference between watching the game from the sideline and being able to disect the game in videotape? Sure, but we allow it. I don't see the difference between allowing a coach to watch videotapes of the game, but not allowing a coach to watch a videotape of sideline coaches.

Apparently the NFL considers it cheating and told all the teams to follow the guidelines. THAT is the difference.

Sure. I get that. Ultimately, however, I think it is a problematic rule. Nobody is forcing sideline coaches to use signals. The level of outrage is just silly.

 

[glock]

If nothing was done wrong...why did Belichick apologize for it?

If he broke a specific rule, he broke a rule. There is not much to say about it. But the fact that you guys are outraged by this strikes me as silly. Videotaping a coach? Please.

Im outraged that he has the audacity to continue a practice the league told him not to do.Im outraged that fans continue to make excuses for it.If I was the commish I would be outraged that a coach and team disobeyed a direct request to follow the rules and flaunted that crap in my face.

Hey, if he broke a specific league rule, then he gets punished. I just happen to think it is a bit of a silly rule. And I also have a feeling that the rule that he broke will turn out to be more ambiguous than people here are making it seem. But time will tell, I'm sure.

Okay, just so long as YOU think it's a silly rule. Godell and Co. apparently disagree, let everyone know how they wanted the game played- rather un-ambiguously I might add- and BB and Co. decided to thumb their noses at him.I don't think anyone should be fried for this, but it most definitely merits some form of swift and appropriate punishment. What that will be is up to Godell. I don't think he fells it is a silly rule.

 

[trader jake]

The Pats are just going down the highway in a White Blazer right now. No worries.

 

[Mr.Happy]

Here is what happened

Belichick thought there was a loophole in the rules and it could be exploited. Belichick wouldn't outright cheat...It would call into question his "genius" label. But it makes perfect sense, knowing him as long as I have as "just a fan", that he would think he found a loophole and he was "outsmarting the league" by exploiting the loophole. I am 100% sure he thought he found a loophole, and tried to exploit the heck out of it.

It makes perfect sense knowing his personality, and cheating would go against what we know about him because "The great Bill Belichick doesn't need to cheat". He thought he found a loophole, and he screwed up.

 

[Sweet J]

If nothing was done wrong...why did Belichick apologize for it?

"Earlier this week, I spoke with Commissioner 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. 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."

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/

I don't read anything into the "apology". It was a very carefully worded / don't say anything but let people know we're not hiding type thing.Belichick's a guy careful with his words. He said, " I want to apologize to everyone who has been affected" People have been affected by this turmoil. Innocent or guilty. He's apologizing for the turmoil. Not any actions he's guilty for.

J

I think you're 100% right. And it also leaves open the possibility that the Patriots thought there was some kind of loophole in the ACTUAL memo that was sent down by the league this offseason that they thought they might have been able to slip through.

Bingo. I have a feeling that this isn't as cut-and-dry as the screamers in these threads would like it to be.

 

[GregR_2]

Seriously, this thread title needs to be changed. It's definitely misleading.

And do we need ANOTHER thread on this topic anyway?

 

[Sweet J]

If nothing was done wrong...why did Belichick apologize for it?

If he broke a specific rule, he broke a rule. There is not much to say about it. But the fact that you guys are outraged by this strikes me as silly. Videotaping a coach? Please.

Im outraged that he has the audacity to continue a practice the league told him not to do.Im outraged that fans continue to make excuses for it.If I was the commish I would be outraged that a coach and team disobeyed a direct request to follow the rules and flaunted that crap in my face.

Hey, if he broke a specific league rule, then he gets punished. I just happen to think it is a bit of a silly rule. And I also have a feeling that the rule that he broke will turn out to be more ambiguous than people here are making it seem. But time will tell, I'm sure.

Okay, just so long as YOU think it's a silly rule. Godell and Co. apparently disagree, let everyone know how they wanted the game played- rather un-ambiguously I might add- and BB and Co. decided to thumb their noses at him.I don't think anyone should be fried for this, but it most definitely merits some form of swift and appropriate punishment. What that will be is up to Godell. I don't think he fells it is a silly rule.

Isn't there a prohibition on FFA vs. FFA violence. You, sir, are overqualified for this argument.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

They are in a catch 22 here. On the one hand, I think Goodell, based on his short track record will prioritze swift and stern justice here, because the only thing he's more interested the perception of competitive righteousness and an image of honor for the league is to get this thing over with ASAP.

I'm sorry to cut out just a piece of what was a fantastic post, but do you disagree with this way of going about it? If so, why?

I don't inherently disagree. If I thought the Patriots were STRICTLY a product of this, I would favor a deeper, more extensive, more public investigation. I think this is more a reflection of, again, Belichick being an SOB who's a paranoid sociopath who might do this without it being necessary. I'm sure there are occasions where they couldn't "crack the code". Its not like they went undefeated, and its not like he's been dealing with third rate talent. But, even if they didn't need to do it, even if it was done to little advantage, I think the league needs to make a very public example of him and fast, because in the last day or so, this has gone mainstream, and the last thing anyone wants is Belichick's mug side by side with Tim Donahue on MSNBC, Fox News and CNN all day long for the next week. Its not good for the league and even this debate we're having, while lively, is not good. We should be talking football, not this B.S.Goodell will have to mete some justice though, because this league is built on projecting fan loyalty. The marketing is based on living and dying with your team and the run for the playoffs which becomes the run for the Super Bowl and all the glory and t-shirts you can buy that goes with it. If there is any perception of wrongdoing in the NFL with the general public, its roids, but its accepted, likely because its percieved as being uniform team to team. Its not like the Colts and the Colts alone are on the gas and everyone is trying to compete against that. If guys are on HGH, again in public perception, at least they are competeing against other HGHers.But forgetting the money they gained as winners, and cost others as losers, as much as anything, for the fans, its about legacy. It was hard to find Patriot fans 10 years ago because they were a loser franchise. They got their bowls and basically built pretty big regional fanbase out of simply winning. However, what about the investment in time, tickets, heartache, etc, fans of the Eagles, Panthers, Raiders, Rams, Steelers, not to say an of the AFC east squads when there could be a PERCEPTION of impropriety? We were talking some close games here, and any little advantage will leave a bad taste in the mouth of the other fans. Belichick's head will do a lot calm the savages(figuratively, I think a lot will rest in how he handles this scenario and how he conducted himself with last years investigation. If he was or is the same smug, aloof jerkoff he's been coming off as, I think he could see the book thrown at him, a 5 game suspension or so. The ONLY reason I think he won't face suspension is to expedite getting over this issue, and the league won't want to revist this hoopla in October when he would return to the sidelines.

 

[GregR_2]

Can someone please explain to me how videotaping a sideline coach is different that watching the coach from the stands and taking notes?

You want explained how a picture is worth a thousand words?Or were you looking for more like this?

From here.

“We used to film opposing players all the time,” he said. “The coaches would ask us to focus on someone in the pregame and then they’d monitor it in the coaches booth. It’s a common thing everyone does. I just can’t believe the Patriots were so brazen about it.”

He described one way the Pats could have theoretically benefited from taping the Jets coaches. Because there’s a monitor and printer in the coaches booth and on the sidelines for the legal Polaroids teams are allowed to consult during the game, coaches would have a spot to view video.

“They could split off the feed that goes to the printers and back to the booth and just tap into the feed from the camera,” he said. “There’s a trunk with printers and monitors on the field, and they could have tapped into that, too.”

Put those images in front of men who know what they’re looking at, and it would be a huge advantage. What surprised him most, he said, was an obvious precaution the Patriots failed to take.

“I never actually recorded anything,” he said, “so as not to leave evidence!”

 

[glock]

I think in all sports, there is a respect for the human computer of the mind to break down and evaluate signs being stolen.

But if you can't see the difference between video taping and doing it on sight, then I don't know what to tell you.

Given one real time glance versus being able to rewind, review and disect the sign and you can't see the difference?

Is there a difference between watching the game from the sideline and being able to disect the game in videotape? Sure, but we allow it. I don't see the difference between allowing a coach to watch videotapes of the game, but not allowing a coach to watch a videotape of sideline coaches.

Apparently the NFL considers it cheating and told all the teams to follow the guidelines. THAT is the difference.

Sure. I get that. Ultimately, however, I think it is a problematic rule. Nobody is forcing sideline coaches to use signals. The level of outrage is just silly.

:sigh: In lieu of mental telepathy, signals are used to cover the distance from the coaches on the sidelines to the players on the field. Apparently Goodell fells that if you can WATCH this from your side of the field and make use of what you see, fine. Good on you. He however seems to feel that electronic capturing of these signals- as well as stealing or jamming of signals sent by the opposition via radio- is not what he envisions for the NFL.I happen to agree. You? Not so much.

 

[twitch]

I cant help but think of how in the 2 games New England has been accused of stealing/communicating Defensive signals, they held the Jets to 14 points and Green Bay to 0. Im going out on a limb and suggesting they must have been stealing OFFENSIVE signals as well. We're just not giving the Pats enough credit here....theyre FAR better cheaters than anyone even realizes. friggin' cheaters.

 

[Kit Fisto]

First of all, please merge these threads.... I can't keep up, jumping back and forth.

Secondly, Sean McAdam mentioned on WEEI last night during the Big Show, that no matter what Belichick is found guilty of or not, don't expect the drastic forfeiture of first rounders, the Jets game, or any other similar over-the-top drama queen fantasy football message board penalties. He said that while the rest of the league and the USA may hate Belichick, Robert Kraft is WELL RESPECTED amongst NFL owners and the Commissioner, and has done a lot of good for the NFL since he bought he Pats. Not just the Patriots, the NFL. So yes, even you Jets, Lions and Packers fans. Even you LDT.

The Patriots will be punished for sure, but Goodell will not alienate Kraft.