What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Patriots being investigated after Colts game (2 Viewers)

Percent of NFL teams actively trying to steal play sheets?

  • 0%

    Votes: 90 33.0%
  • 25%

    Votes: 91 33.3%
  • 50%

    Votes: 19 7.0%
  • 75%

    Votes: 16 5.9%
  • 100%

    Votes: 57 20.9%

  • Total voters
    273
The Patriots got punished for Spygate for taping signals from a spot that they were not supposed to and ignoring a league wide memo to stop. The Patriots didn't deny it. Goodell docked them a first round pick for ignoring the memo, as the league told ever to knock it off the week before. Even Goodell art the time did not seem to want to know how far back it went and only wanted things to stop.

My stirring the pot comment refers to the fact that the league knew what they were doing and did not need an exact number of games that they had taped signals. The ESPN report fills in the blanks with a number of games but it essentially does not really uncover anything new.

 
There was nothing illegal about having tapes. The illegal part was taping from the sidelines. The reason that's illegal isn't because you it makes the tapes more valuable, but because you aren't supposed to use the tapes during the game. Which is nonsense, since you can tape the game, analyze the tapes during the game and walk down to the sidelines. But that's the rule. I'm surprised there were only 40 games. It seems like something most teams would, should, legally could and probably did do every game.

But it makes sense to suddenly remember this fact the morning before the new patriots documentary airs. Because patriot fans were already going to watch it, but this will get the Shannon sharpe types to watch so they can see how much cheating is talked about.

Fun thing from Shannon Sharpe the other day, he was objectively naming all of the known cheating from the Patriots and n he listed spy gate, which he referred to as something with the player helmets, and also the tuck rule game, because, obv. That's about as smart as moat of the omg cheater crowd sounds to me.

 
So happy as a non fan of Brady, the Pats, and Roger Goodell today... Thank you outside the lines for filling in some of the blanks of why spygate seemed so hastily handled and bungled by that fool of a commish... Perhaps 40 plus games taped? Handwritten stolen signals? You mean it wasn't just that one time against the Jets?

It's a culture of cheating created by the Hoodie and accepted by the QB... And Roger should be canned for failure to "protect the shield" and for his own lying, manipulating the facts, and generally just being a #####

 
Perhaps 40 plus games taped? Handwritten stolen signals? You mean it wasn't just that one time against the Jets?
When did anyone ever say it was only that one time against the Jets? And why would handwritten signals matter at all? That's totally legal. If you've watched an NFL game, you may have noticed the coaches covering their mouths while calling plays. Chip Kelly has three different guys calling signals in using air traffic control signs. Lol at stolen signs.
 
People should read the ESPN article - and it's a long one - before commenting.

It rips Goodell's credibility to shreds, and it paints an objective picture of what the Patriots did and didn't do, and just as importantly who was aware of it all.

 
Perhaps 40 plus games taped? Handwritten stolen signals? You mean it wasn't just that one time against the Jets?
When did anyone ever say it was only that one time against the Jets? And why would handwritten signals matter at all? That's totally legal. If you've watched an NFL game, you may have noticed the coaches covering their mouths while calling plays. Chip Kelly has three different guys calling signals in using air traffic control signs. Lol at stolen signs.
Stealing signals is and always has been legal. Every team does it, just like in baseball.

Taping them isn't, and taping them during a game to use immediately in real-time to gain a competitive advantage surely wasn't and isn't.

 
ESPN stirring the pot on Spygate again. OTL alleging NE taped signals for 40 games and that there was some mysterious agreement with Kraft to get things swept under the rug.
I'm watching Mike n Mike right now.

They're not stirring the pot. The OTL investigations have always been a pretty reliable source.

They're saying that this Deflategate investigation was a "make-up" call because the Deflategate investigation was done so hastily. On top of the info that 40+ games worth of signals were taped between 2000 and 2007, they also state that it was Goodell's call to take the EIGHT tapes those were on and have NFL executives smash them on the floor and leave the pieces there for Patriots' lawyers to pick up. A lot of details in there about the timing and who was involved.

It explains why this investigation was so over the top, and I don't think there are many sane people who don't believe there was a lot more to Spygate than anyone ever learned about, which is why the NFL had the evidence destroyed to not tarnish the game any more than it did.
And this is why the owners pushed Goodell to be as harsh as he was on Deflategate and to not back down or settle. It was never about the deflated footballs. Spygate and deflated footballs are what they were caught doing. How much more did they get away with that couldn't be proven? Players had meetings in hallways on the fear that the locke rooms were being bugged. They just want the Patriots to stop cheating.

Of course all of this pales in comparison to the discovery that Brady supports The Donald. :lol:

 
Perhaps 40 plus games taped? Handwritten stolen signals? You mean it wasn't just that one time against the Jets?
When did anyone ever say it was only that one time against the Jets? And why would handwritten signals matter at all? That's totally legal. If you've watched an NFL game, you may have noticed the coaches covering their mouths while calling plays. Chip Kelly has three different guys calling signals in using air traffic control signs. Lol at stolen signs.
Stealing signals is and always has been legal. Every team does it, just like in baseball.

Taping them isn't, and taping them during a game to use immediately in real-time to gain a competitive advantage surely wasn't and isn't.
Taping them was legal, in most contexts, until 2006. There were some restrictions.

Thus, the question becomes what is the specific evidence here?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps 40 plus games taped? Handwritten stolen signals? You mean it wasn't just that one time against the Jets?
When did anyone ever say it was only that one time against the Jets? And why would handwritten signals matter at all? That's totally legal. If you've watched an NFL game, you may have noticed the coaches covering their mouths while calling plays. Chip Kelly has three different guys calling signals in using air traffic control signs. Lol at stolen signs.
Stealing signals is and always has been legal. Every team does it, just like in baseball.Taping them isn't, and taping them during a game to use immediately in real-time to gain a competitive advantage surely wasn't and isn't.
Taping them is and was legal. Taping them from the sidelines was against the rules. The reason for this is your last point - using the information in real time. Nobody has alleged that the Patriots used the information in real time, and iirc they have explicitly denied doing so. But so many people misunderstand what happened that it doesn't matter, because some people think that it was illegal to tape the signs altogether. Of course technology has changed so much since 2007 that every single fan on the stadium has a high def camera in the stands. So all of this is moot going forward anyways.

 
Perhaps 40 plus games taped? Handwritten stolen signals? You mean it wasn't just that one time against the Jets?
When did anyone ever say it was only that one time against the Jets? And why would handwritten signals matter at all? That's totally legal. If you've watched an NFL game, you may have noticed the coaches covering their mouths while calling plays. Chip Kelly has three different guys calling signals in using air traffic control signs. Lol at stolen signs.
Stealing signals is and always has been legal. Every team does it, just like in baseball.

Taping them isn't, and taping them during a game to use immediately in real-time to gain a competitive advantage surely wasn't and isn't.
This has always been alleged, but I've never seen any proof that it was done. Does the article provide some, or is it more of the same speculation regurgitated?

 
The NFL really has so many people emotionally hooked on this stuff.

Fascinating to watch people take the bait and actually get upset over it. :popcorn:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ESPN stirring the pot on Spygate again. OTL alleging NE taped signals for 40 games and that there was some mysterious agreement with Kraft to get things swept under the rug.
I'm watching Mike n Mike right now.

They're not stirring the pot. The OTL investigations have always been a pretty reliable source.

They're saying that this Deflategate investigation was a "make-up" call because the Deflategate investigation was done so hastily. On top of the info that 40+ games worth of signals were taped between 2000 and 2007, they also state that it was Goodell's call to take the EIGHT tapes those were on and have NFL executives smash them on the floor and leave the pieces there for Patriots' lawyers to pick up. A lot of details in there about the timing and who was involved.

It explains why this investigation was so over the top, and I don't think there are many sane people who don't believe there was a lot more to Spygate than anyone ever learned about, which is why the NFL had the evidence destroyed to not tarnish the game any more than it did.
And this is why the owners pushed Goodell to be as harsh as he was on Deflategate and to not back down or settle. It was never about the deflated footballs. Spygate and deflated footballs are what they were caught doing. How much more did they get away with that couldn't be proven? Players had meetings in hallways on the fear that the locke rooms were being bugged. They just want the Patriots to stop cheating.

Of course all of this pales in comparison to the discovery that Brady supports The Donald. :lol:
If you suspect someone, but can't prove it, you still think they should be punished? Interesting take, but not really what justice is based on.

Have any bugs ever been found? Just because someone fears they may be doing something is not proof that they are.

 
I skimmed over this million word story when I woke up.

Is there a single named source in the entire thing?

Literally every sentence I read ended with "a source said."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
An excerpt that described the process and how it came to be:

IN AUGUST 2000, before a Patriots preseason game against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Jimmy Dee, the head of New England's video department, approached one of his charges, Matt Walsh, with a strange assignment: He wanted Walsh to film the Bucs' offensive and defensive signals, the arm waving and hand folding that team coaches use to communicate plays and formations to the men on the field. Walsh was 24 years old, a lifelong New Englander and Patriots fan. He was one of the few employees Belichick retained that season, his first as the team's coach. The practice of decoding signals was universal in football -- a single stolen signal can change a game -- with advance scouts jotting down notes, then matching the signal to the play. The Patriots created a novel spying system that made the decoding more dependable.

Walsh later told investigators that, at the time, he didn't know the NFL game operations manual forbade taping signals. He would later recall that even Dee seemed unsure of "what specifically it was that the coaches wanted me to film." Regardless, Walsh complied, standing on the sideline with a camera aimed at Tampa Bay's coaches. After the game, he gave the Beta tape to Dee.

Not coincidentally, the Bucs were also New England's opponent in the regular-season opener. A few days before the game, Walsh told Senate investigators, according to notes of the interview, a backup quarterback named John Friesz was summoned to Belichick's office. Offensive coordinator Charlie Weis and a professorial, quirky man named Ernie Adams were present. Adams was -- and still is -- a mystery in the Patriots building, a socially awkward amateur historian of pro football and the Vietnam War who often wore the same red, hole-ridden Patriots sweater from the 1970s. He had a photographic memory, and Brady once said that Adams "knows more about professional football than anyone I ever met."

Adams' title was football research director, the only known person with that title in the NFL. He had made a fortune in the stock market in the 1980s, and the joke was that the only person in the building richer than Adams was Kraft. Belichick and Adams had been friends since 1970, when they were classmates at Phillips Academy, a New England prep school. Adams introduced himself to Belichick because he recognized his name from a little-known scouting book published in 1962 by his father, Steve Belichick.

When Bill Belichick became coach of the Browns in 1991, he hired Adams to be a consigliere of sorts. Owner Art Modell famously offered $10,000 to any employee who could tell him what Adams did. In short, in Cleveland and in New England, Adams did whatever he wanted -- and whatever Belichick wanted: statistical analysis, scouting and strategy. Years later, Walsh recalled to Senate investigators that Adams told old stories from the Browns about giving a video staffer an NFL Films shirt and assigning him to film the opponents' sideline huddles and grease boards from behind the bench. The shared view of Belichick and Adams, according to many who've worked with them, is this: The league is lazy and incompetent, so why not push every boundary? "You'd want Bill and Ernie doing your taxes," says a former Patriots assistant coach. "They would find all the loopholes, and then when the IRS would close them, they'd find more."

Days before the Tampa Bay game, in Belichick's office, Friesz was told that the Patriots had a tape of the Bucs' signals. He was instructed to memorize them, and during the game, to watch Bucs defensive coordinator Monte Kiffin and tell Weis the defensive play, which Weis would relay over the radio headset system to quarterback Drew Bledsoe. That Sunday against the Bucs, Walsh later told investigators, the Patriots played more no-huddle than usual, forcing Kiffin to signal in plays quickly, allowing Weis sufficient time to relay the information. Years later, some Patriots coaches would point to the score -- a 21-16 Bucs win -- as evidence of Spygate's ineffectiveness. But as Walsh later told investigators, Friesz, who did not respond to messages to comment for this story, told Walsh after the game that the Patriots knew 75 percent of the Bucs' defenses before the snap.

Now, the Patriots realized that they were on to something, a schematic edge that could allow their best minds more control on the field. Taping from the sideline increased efficiency and minimized confusion. And so, as Walsh later told investigators, the system improved, becoming more streamlined -- and more secretive. The quarterbacks were cut out of the process. The only people involved were a few coaches, the video staff and, of course, Adams. Belichick, almost five years after being fired by the Browns and fully aware that this was his last best shot as a head coach, placed an innovative system of cheating in the hands of his most trusted friend.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps 40 plus games taped? Handwritten stolen signals? You mean it wasn't just that one time against the Jets?
When did anyone ever say it was only that one time against the Jets? And why would handwritten signals matter at all? That's totally legal. If you've watched an NFL game, you may have noticed the coaches covering their mouths while calling plays. Chip Kelly has three different guys calling signals in using air traffic control signs. Lol at stolen signs.
Stealing signals is and always has been legal. Every team does it, just like in baseball.

Taping them isn't, and taping them during a game to use immediately in real-time to gain a competitive advantage surely wasn't and isn't.
Wrong. Taping signals from the sidelines is against the rules. Taping the exact same signals from a room overlooking the sidelines with a zoom lens is allowed.

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

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-patriots-opponents-wont-let-spygate-die-but-did-it-really-matter/

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/09/21/patriots_wont_be_hit_harder/

 
... they also state that it was Goodell's call to take the EIGHT tapes those were on and have NFL executives smash them on the floor and leave the pieces there for Patriots' lawyers to pick up.
Goodell dodged an immense bullet there. Had the Pats lawyers collected those smashed tape pieces and sealed them up in a Ziploc, much of the content off the magnetic tape would've been recoverable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps 40 plus games taped? Handwritten stolen signals? You mean it wasn't just that one time against the Jets?
When did anyone ever say it was only that one time against the Jets? And why would handwritten signals matter at all? That's totally legal. If you've watched an NFL game, you may have noticed the coaches covering their mouths while calling plays. Chip Kelly has three different guys calling signals in using air traffic control signs. Lol at stolen signs.
Stealing signals is and always has been legal. Every team does it, just like in baseball.

Taping them isn't, and taping them during a game to use immediately in real-time to gain a competitive advantage surely wasn't and isn't.
Wrong. Taping signals from the sidelines is against the rules. Taping the exact same signals from a room overlooking the sidelines with a zoom lens is allowed.

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

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-patriots-opponents-wont-let-spygate-die-but-did-it-really-matter/

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/09/21/patriots_wont_be_hit_harder/
Taping is legal.

Taping signals isn't.

And I'd suggest you read the ESPN OTL article if you think the Patriots didn't use that information during games, real-time.

Or else they're lying, too.

 
ESPN stirring the pot on Spygate again. OTL alleging NE taped signals for 40 games and that there was some mysterious agreement with Kraft to get things swept under the rug.
I'm watching Mike n Mike right now.

They're not stirring the pot. The OTL investigations have always been a pretty reliable source.

They're saying that this Deflategate investigation was a "make-up" call because the Deflategate investigation was done so hastily. On top of the info that 40+ games worth of signals were taped between 2000 and 2007, they also state that it was Goodell's call to take the EIGHT tapes those were on and have NFL executives smash them on the floor and leave the pieces there for Patriots' lawyers to pick up. A lot of details in there about the timing and who was involved.

It explains why this investigation was so over the top, and I don't think there are many sane people who don't believe there was a lot more to Spygate than anyone ever learned about, which is why the NFL had the evidence destroyed to not tarnish the game any more than it did.
And this is why the owners pushed Goodell to be as harsh as he was on Deflategate and to not back down or settle. It was never about the deflated footballs. Spygate and deflated footballs are what they were caught doing. How much more did they get away with that couldn't be proven? Players had meetings in hallways on the fear that the locke rooms were being bugged. They just want the Patriots to stop cheating.

Of course all of this pales in comparison to the discovery that Brady supports The Donald. :lol:
A history of false/debunked accusations is not proof of cheating. It is proof that Salty Haters are irrational, whiny losers.

If I falsely accuse you of molesting kids like Jared from Subway but have no evidence, does that make it true? By your own logic, lack of evidence is just proof you got away with it. :shrug:

 
Shocker...

But to the many owners who saw the Patriots as longtime cheaters, it really didn't matter that Goodell appeared eager, perhaps overeager, to show the rest of the NFL that he had learned the lessons of Spygate. One team owner acknowledges that for years there was a "jealous ... hater" relationship among many owners with Kraft, the residue of Spygate. "It's not surprising that there's a makeup call," one team owner says. Another longtime executive says a number of owners wanted Goodell to "go hard on this one."
Oh wait, not at all.

 
Perhaps 40 plus games taped? Handwritten stolen signals? You mean it wasn't just that one time against the Jets?
When did anyone ever say it was only that one time against the Jets? And why would handwritten signals matter at all? That's totally legal. If you've watched an NFL game, you may have noticed the coaches covering their mouths while calling plays. Chip Kelly has three different guys calling signals in using air traffic control signs. Lol at stolen signs.
Stealing signals is and always has been legal. Every team does it, just like in baseball.

Taping them isn't, and taping them during a game to use immediately in real-time to gain a competitive advantage surely wasn't and isn't.
Wrong. Taping signals from the sidelines is against the rules. Taping the exact same signals from a room overlooking the sidelines with a zoom lens is allowed.

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

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-patriots-opponents-wont-let-spygate-die-but-did-it-really-matter/

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/09/21/patriots_wont_be_hit_harder/
Taping is legal.

Taping signals isn't.

And I'd suggest you read the ESPN OTL article if you think the Patriots didn't use that information during games, real-time.

Or else they're lying, too.
From your excerpt, they don't claim they used the signals in real time, but rather used previously taped signals. Of course they used the information they gathered in games. Stealing signals is a universal truth across any sport that uses signals. And of course any information gained by stealing signals is used in games.

But other than the taping scheme being more efficient, and the taping occurring from a location expressly forbidden, what makes this occurrence of stealing signals any worse than every other instance of the same?

 
Perhaps 40 plus games taped? Handwritten stolen signals? You mean it wasn't just that one time against the Jets?
When did anyone ever say it was only that one time against the Jets? And why would handwritten signals matter at all? That's totally legal. If you've watched an NFL game, you may have noticed the coaches covering their mouths while calling plays. Chip Kelly has three different guys calling signals in using air traffic control signs. Lol at stolen signs.
Stealing signals is and always has been legal. Every team does it, just like in baseball.

Taping them isn't, and taping them during a game to use immediately in real-time to gain a competitive advantage surely wasn't and isn't.
Wrong. Taping signals from the sidelines is against the rules. Taping the exact same signals from a room overlooking the sidelines with a zoom lens is allowed.

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

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-patriots-opponents-wont-let-spygate-die-but-did-it-really-matter/

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/09/21/patriots_wont_be_hit_harder/
Taping is legal.

Taping signals isn't.

And I'd suggest you read the ESPN OTL article if you think the Patriots didn't use that information during games, real-time.

Or else they're lying, too.
I suggest you read the NFL rulebook, which doesn't support your claim.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d802456c2/printable/belichick-speaks-with-goodell-apologizes-for-videotape-flap

 
Perhaps 40 plus games taped? Handwritten stolen signals? You mean it wasn't just that one time against the Jets?
When did anyone ever say it was only that one time against the Jets? And why would handwritten signals matter at all? That's totally legal. If you've watched an NFL game, you may have noticed the coaches covering their mouths while calling plays. Chip Kelly has three different guys calling signals in using air traffic control signs. Lol at stolen signs.
Stealing signals is and always has been legal. Every team does it, just like in baseball.

Taping them isn't, and taping them during a game to use immediately in real-time to gain a competitive advantage surely wasn't and isn't.
Wrong. Taping signals from the sidelines is against the rules. Taping the exact same signals from a room overlooking the sidelines with a zoom lens is allowed.

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

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-patriots-opponents-wont-let-spygate-die-but-did-it-really-matter/

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/09/21/patriots_wont_be_hit_harder/
Taping is legal.

Taping signals isn't.

And I'd suggest you read the ESPN OTL article if you think the Patriots didn't use that information during games, real-time.

Or else they're lying, too.
From your excerpt, they don't claim they used the signals in real time, but rather used previously taped signals. Of course they used the information they gathered in games. Stealing signals is a universal truth across any sport that uses signals. And of course any information gained by stealing signals is used in games.

But other than the taping scheme being more efficient, and the taping occurring from a location expressly forbidden, what makes this occurrence of stealing signals any worse than every other instance of the same?
Taping signals itself is illegal.

The taping of game action and such is perfectly legal with restrictions on where they can do it from. But the taping of signals is and always has been 100% illegal. The only people who don't understand that are the ones who want to believe Belicheck just misinterpreted a rule.

The article is a good read. It's not slanted because it makes the league look as bad as the Patriots. An entirely corrupt situation on both ends.

 
Perhaps 40 plus games taped? Handwritten stolen signals? You mean it wasn't just that one time against the Jets?
When did anyone ever say it was only that one time against the Jets? And why would handwritten signals matter at all? That's totally legal. If you've watched an NFL game, you may have noticed the coaches covering their mouths while calling plays. Chip Kelly has three different guys calling signals in using air traffic control signs. Lol at stolen signs.
Stealing signals is and always has been legal. Every team does it, just like in baseball.

Taping them isn't, and taping them during a game to use immediately in real-time to gain a competitive advantage surely wasn't and isn't.
Wrong. Taping signals from the sidelines is against the rules. Taping the exact same signals from a room overlooking the sidelines with a zoom lens is allowed.

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

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-patriots-opponents-wont-let-spygate-die-but-did-it-really-matter/

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/09/21/patriots_wont_be_hit_harder/
Taping is legal.

Taping signals isn't.

And I'd suggest you read the ESPN OTL article if you think the Patriots didn't use that information during games, real-time.

Or else they're lying, too.
From your excerpt, they don't claim they used the signals in real time, but rather used previously taped signals. Of course they used the information they gathered in games. Stealing signals is a universal truth across any sport that uses signals. And of course any information gained by stealing signals is used in games.

But other than the taping scheme being more efficient, and the taping occurring from a location expressly forbidden, what makes this occurrence of stealing signals any worse than every other instance of the same?
Taping signals itself is illegal.

The taping of game action and such is perfectly legal with restrictions on where they can do it from. But the taping of signals is and always has been 100% illegal. The only people who don't understand that are the ones who want to believe Belicheck just misinterpreted a rule.

The article is a good read. It's not slanted because it makes the league look as bad as the Patriots. An entirely corrupt situation on both ends.
Please show everyone where it says this in the rulebook.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d802456c2/printable/belichick-speaks-with-goodell-apologizes-for-videotape-flap

The only rules cited talk about filming location.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IMO, had the league released whatever videotapes they found in possession of NE, so much misinformation would have come out that no one would have known what to do.

As stated multiple times, taping signals is not illegal if you don't use that information during the game. Where the Patriots taped from was the illegal part . . .

NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson had sent a memo in September 2006 reminding teams that "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."

If taping signals were illegal, they would have just said videotaping signals was illegal. But that's not what they said.

But the Pats weren't the only team taping signals . . . even from the sidelines. It has been rumored for years that video personnel from other teams were seen on the tapes that were found and the camera guys from both teams used to wave to each other. It certainly is not illegal to have scouting notes on how coaches signal in plays.

So let's play this out. Let's say the league released the tapes that they found. Fans would be outraged. Other teams would be outraged. But the only thing the Patriots did wrong was videotape from the wrong spot. Of course, the league would not have explained the situation, and they would have let the Patrtios fry. But what would have happened when the tapes showed other teams filming?

If the Patriots are guilty of anything, it's pushing the envelope more than other teams and in more ways than any other team (and being arrogant about everything on top of it all). As I have expressed many time sin this thread, I do think BB operates on a platform of tyring to do a lot of things until they get caught and told to stop.

 
Perhaps 40 plus games taped? Handwritten stolen signals? You mean it wasn't just that one time against the Jets?
When did anyone ever say it was only that one time against the Jets? And why would handwritten signals matter at all? That's totally legal. If you've watched an NFL game, you may have noticed the coaches covering their mouths while calling plays. Chip Kelly has three different guys calling signals in using air traffic control signs. Lol at stolen signs.
Stealing signals is and always has been legal. Every team does it, just like in baseball.

Taping them isn't, and taping them during a game to use immediately in real-time to gain a competitive advantage surely wasn't and isn't.
Wrong. Taping signals from the sidelines is against the rules. Taping the exact same signals from a room overlooking the sidelines with a zoom lens is allowed.

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

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-patriots-opponents-wont-let-spygate-die-but-did-it-really-matter/

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/09/21/patriots_wont_be_hit_harder/
Taping is legal.

Taping signals isn't.

And I'd suggest you read the ESPN OTL article if you think the Patriots didn't use that information during games, real-time.

Or else they're lying, too.
From your excerpt, they don't claim they used the signals in real time, but rather used previously taped signals. Of course they used the information they gathered in games. Stealing signals is a universal truth across any sport that uses signals. And of course any information gained by stealing signals is used in games.

But other than the taping scheme being more efficient, and the taping occurring from a location expressly forbidden, what makes this occurrence of stealing signals any worse than every other instance of the same?
Taping signals itself is illegal.

The taping of game action and such is perfectly legal with restrictions on where they can do it from. But the taping of signals is and always has been 100% illegal. The only people who don't understand that are the ones who want to believe Belicheck just misinterpreted a rule.

The article is a good read. It's not slanted because it makes the league look as bad as the Patriots. An entirely corrupt situation on both ends.
Please show everyone where it says this in the rulebook.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d802456c2/printable/belichick-speaks-with-goodell-apologizes-for-videotape-flap

The only rules cited talk about filming location.
I don't know how to do searches for specific NFL rules. There have been numerous articles out there saying that teams often try to steal signals, but when videotaping equipment is used, it becomes illegal. And that's why the Patriots got punished so hard... not because they videotaped from an illegal spot, but because the act itself was cheating.

That rule is the one that Belichek says he "misinterpreted" but it refers only to in-game taping. And I understand that Patriots fans have been arguing those same semantics for years.

I'd encourage you to read the article.

 
I skimmed over this million word story when I woke up.

Is there a single named source in the entire thing?

Literally every sentence I read ended with "a source said."
Shocker...

But to the many owners who saw the Patriots as longtime cheaters, it really didn't matter that Goodell appeared eager, perhaps overeager, to show the rest of the NFL that he had learned the lessons of Spygate. One team owner acknowledges that for years there was a "jealous ... hater" relationship among many owners with Kraft, the residue of Spygate. "It's not surprising that there's a makeup call," one team owner says. Another longtime executive says a number of owners wanted Goodell to "go hard on this one."
Oh wait, not at all.
:lmao:

You can't dismiss unnamed sources when it's negative against the Pats but than use them when trying to prove a point that everyone is out to get the Pats.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's a blurb from Charlie Cassidy from 8 or 9 years ago . . .

Casserly also shared some insight on other techniques employed by NFL teams.

“When I was on the competition committee a couple years ago, we discovered a team that was putting a microphone on a defensive lineman, the nose tackle, to get the signals from the quarterback, matched it to the game tape, and they had the audibles the next time they played them. Another one that goes on, this is what they call a parabolic mic. This picks up sound from the quarterback. What some teams do is have an extra one at the game, get the sound from the quarterback, match that to the game tape, and they’ve got the audibles next time they play them.

http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_football_dolphins/2006/12/stealing_signs_.html

Now he doesn't specify the team(s) that did this, but I don't remember anyone getting in trouble for doing it, no one losing draft picks or getting fined, etc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
From what I've read, theres nothing new in the OTL article.

Ray Anderson sent out a memo that said that you couldn't tape ANYTHING. However the rules explicitly state that you could tape things, from certain places.

BB decided that Anderson was wrong, as the rule is clearly outlined and Anderson cannot change the rules.

The league took it personally.

:lmao:

You can't dismiss unnamed sources when it's negative against the Pats but than use them when trying to prove a point that everyone is out to get the Pats.
I wasn't trying to dismiss anything with my first post, I was trying to figure out if there was any new information and if there was ANY credible information.

Its a ####### long article and normally I have time to read through things, but I've gotta go soon, was hoping someone else had read something that was from this decade or had a named source.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do we really think videotaping coaches signals and play calls REALLY gave them that much of an advantage? I mean ask any coach and former player and they'll all say the same thing. Bunch of salty haters.

 
Here's a blurb from Charlie Cassidy from 8 or 9 years ago . . .

Casserly also shared some insight on other techniques employed by NFL teams.

“When I was on the competition committee a couple years ago, we discovered a team that was putting a microphone on a defensive lineman, the nose tackle, to get the signals from the quarterback, matched it to the game tape, and they had the audibles the next time they played them. Another one that goes on, this is what they call a parabolic mic. This picks up sound from the quarterback. What some teams do is have an extra one at the game, get the sound from the quarterback, match that to the game tape, and they’ve got the audibles next time they play them.

http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_football_dolphins/2006/12/stealing_signs_.html

Now he doesn't specify the team(s) that did this, but I don't remember anyone getting in trouble for doing it, no one losing draft picks or getting fined, etc.
It was probably the Patriots ;)

 
:lmao:

You can't dismiss unnamed sources when it's negative against the Pats but than use them when trying to prove a point that everyone is out to get the Pats.
I wasn't trying to dismiss anything with my first post, I was trying to figure out if there was any new information and if there was ANY credible information.

Its a ####### long article and normally I have time to read through things, but I've gotta go soon, was hoping someone else had read something that was from this decade or had a named source.
I know - just messing with you. I just read it as funny based on the timing.

:bag:

 
Get a load of this:

Mike Martz was “shocked” by apparent changes to statement he gave to the NFL

At some point after the Boston Herald reported in early 2008 that the Patriots had taped the Rams’ walk-through practice before Super Bowl XXXVI, a “panicked” Commissioner Roger Goodell asked former Rams coach Mike Martz to provide a statement “saying that he was satisfied with the NFL’s Spygate investigation and was certain the Patriots had not cheated and asking everyone to move on.”

So Martz provided a statement to the league. And ESPN showed the statement to Martz when interviewing him for the Patriots Alleged Cheating Opus. And Martz didn’t recognize portions of it.

It shocked me,” Martz told ESPN. “It appears embellished quite a bit — some lines I know I didn’t write. Who changed it? I don’t know.”

And that was the end of it, as far as the ESPN Patriots Alleged Cheating Opus is concerned. There was no statement from the league office denying any changes to the statement. There was no apparent effort to procure the original statement, if there was one.

If Martz is right, that’s a huge deal. If the NFL changed in any way a statement from Martz that was used to placate Senator Arlen Specter and to block a Congressional investigation, this is the kind of thing that could turn the NFL into FIFA.
Now that, my friends, is big.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps 40 plus games taped? Handwritten stolen signals? You mean it wasn't just that one time against the Jets?
When did anyone ever say it was only that one time against the Jets? And why would handwritten signals matter at all? That's totally legal. If you've watched an NFL game, you may have noticed the coaches covering their mouths while calling plays. Chip Kelly has three different guys calling signals in using air traffic control signs. Lol at stolen signs.
Stealing signals is and always has been legal. Every team does it, just like in baseball.

Taping them isn't, and taping them during a game to use immediately in real-time to gain a competitive advantage surely wasn't and isn't.
Wrong. Taping signals from the sidelines is against the rules. Taping the exact same signals from a room overlooking the sidelines with a zoom lens is allowed.

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

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-patriots-opponents-wont-let-spygate-die-but-did-it-really-matter/

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/09/21/patriots_wont_be_hit_harder/
Taping is legal.

Taping signals isn't.

And I'd suggest you read the ESPN OTL article if you think the Patriots didn't use that information during games, real-time.

Or else they're lying, too.
From your excerpt, they don't claim they used the signals in real time, but rather used previously taped signals. Of course they used the information they gathered in games. Stealing signals is a universal truth across any sport that uses signals. And of course any information gained by stealing signals is used in games.

But other than the taping scheme being more efficient, and the taping occurring from a location expressly forbidden, what makes this occurrence of stealing signals any worse than every other instance of the same?
Taping signals itself is illegal.

The taping of game action and such is perfectly legal with restrictions on where they can do it from. But the taping of signals is and always has been 100% illegal. The only people who don't understand that are the ones who want to believe Belicheck just misinterpreted a rule.

The article is a good read. It's not slanted because it makes the league look as bad as the Patriots. An entirely corrupt situation on both ends.
Please show everyone where it says this in the rulebook.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d802456c2/printable/belichick-speaks-with-goodell-apologizes-for-videotape-flap

The only rules cited talk about filming location.
I don't know how to do searches for specific NFL rules. There have been numerous articles out there saying that teams often try to steal signals, but when videotaping equipment is used, it becomes illegal. And that's why the Patriots got punished so hard... not because they videotaped from an illegal spot, but because the act itself was cheating.

That rule is the one that Belichek says he "misinterpreted" but it refers only to in-game taping. And I understand that Patriots fans have been arguing those same semantics for years.

I'd encourage you to read the article.
You are making claims that are not in the rulebook. Period. If you are so sure that it is there, please provide a reference. Otherwise, stop saying there is a rule, when there isn't.

 
Perhaps 40 plus games taped? Handwritten stolen signals? You mean it wasn't just that one time against the Jets?
When did anyone ever say it was only that one time against the Jets? And why would handwritten signals matter at all? That's totally legal. If you've watched an NFL game, you may have noticed the coaches covering their mouths while calling plays. Chip Kelly has three different guys calling signals in using air traffic control signs. Lol at stolen signs.
Stealing signals is and always has been legal. Every team does it, just like in baseball.

Taping them isn't, and taping them during a game to use immediately in real-time to gain a competitive advantage surely wasn't and isn't.
Wrong. Taping signals from the sidelines is against the rules. Taping the exact same signals from a room overlooking the sidelines with a zoom lens is allowed.

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

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-patriots-opponents-wont-let-spygate-die-but-did-it-really-matter/

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/09/21/patriots_wont_be_hit_harder/
Taping is legal.

Taping signals isn't.

And I'd suggest you read the ESPN OTL article if you think the Patriots didn't use that information during games, real-time.

Or else they're lying, too.
From your excerpt, they don't claim they used the signals in real time, but rather used previously taped signals. Of course they used the information they gathered in games. Stealing signals is a universal truth across any sport that uses signals. And of course any information gained by stealing signals is used in games.

But other than the taping scheme being more efficient, and the taping occurring from a location expressly forbidden, what makes this occurrence of stealing signals any worse than every other instance of the same?
Taping signals itself is illegal.

The taping of game action and such is perfectly legal with restrictions on where they can do it from. But the taping of signals is and always has been 100% illegal. The only people who don't understand that are the ones who want to believe Belicheck just misinterpreted a rule.

The article is a good read. It's not slanted because it makes the league look as bad as the Patriots. An entirely corrupt situation on both ends.
Please show everyone where it says this in the rulebook.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d802456c2/printable/belichick-speaks-with-goodell-apologizes-for-videotape-flap

The only rules cited talk about filming location.
I don't know how to do searches for specific NFL rules. There have been numerous articles out there saying that teams often try to steal signals, but when videotaping equipment is used, it becomes illegal. And that's why the Patriots got punished so hard... not because they videotaped from an illegal spot, but because the act itself was cheating.

That rule is the one that Belichek says he "misinterpreted" but it refers only to in-game taping. And I understand that Patriots fans have been arguing those same semantics for years.

I'd encourage you to read the article.
You are making claims that are not in the rulebook. Period. If you are so sure that it is there, please provide a reference. Otherwise, stop saying there is a rule, when there isn't.
Go ahead, keep toting the company line. Patriots fans want to believe that the team was punished for doing something legal from an illegal place. They want to believe that doing it provided them no competitive advantage. And they want to believe that we know the extent of everything that went on. And they'll pin it on a loosely interpreted rule that Belichek cited 7 years ago.

The article blows most of that up, and it blows up both the Patriots' actions and the NFL's handling of them. The Patriots come off looking the same way they have for about 10 years, only this time with more details about what they did and how they did it. The NFL comes off looking truly corrupt.

The Patriots found something they could "misinterpret" and turned it into something bigger, and the NFL - as usual - screwed that one up too. And if that played into how they handled this one, it shouldn't surprise anyone.

 
Get a load of this:

Mike Martz was “shocked” by apparent changes to statement he gave to the NFL

At some point after the Boston Herald reported in early 2008 that the Patriots had taped the Rams’ walk-through practice before Super Bowl XXXVI, a “panicked” Commissioner Roger Goodell asked former Rams coach Mike Martz to provide a statement “saying that he was satisfied with the NFL’s Spygate investigation and was certain the Patriots had not cheated and asking everyone to move on.”

So Martz provided a statement to the league. And ESPN showed the statement to Martz when interviewing him for the Patriots Alleged Cheating Opus. And Martz didn’t recognize portions of it.

It shocked me,” Martz told ESPN. “It appears embellished quite a bit — some lines I know I didn’t write. Who changed it? I don’t know.”

And that was the end of it, as far as the ESPN Patriots Alleged Cheating Opus is concerned. There was no statement from the league office denying any changes to the statement. There was no apparent effort to procure the original statement, if there was one.

If Martz is right, that’s a huge deal. If the NFL changed in any way a statement from Martz that was used to placate Senator Arlen Specter and to block a Congressional investigation, this is the kind of thing that could turn the NFL into FIFA.
Now that, my friends, is big.
This morning on Mike and Mike, one of the two authors of the article said Martz didn't want to give them a statement at all, but did only at the request of Goodell to try and eliminate the issue about whether or not they video-taped anything prior to the Super Bowl.

One of the many areas that the NFL looks horrible in the article.

 
Get a load of this:

Mike Martz was “shocked” by apparent changes to statement he gave to the NFL

At some point after the Boston Herald reported in early 2008 that the Patriots had taped the Rams’ walk-through practice before Super Bowl XXXVI, a “panicked” Commissioner Roger Goodell asked former Rams coach Mike Martz to provide a statement “saying that he was satisfied with the NFL’s Spygate investigation and was certain the Patriots had not cheated and asking everyone to move on.”

So Martz provided a statement to the league. And ESPN showed the statement to Martz when interviewing him for the Patriots Alleged Cheating Opus. And Martz didn’t recognize portions of it.

It shocked me,” Martz told ESPN. “It appears embellished quite a bit — some lines I know I didn’t write. Who changed it? I don’t know.”

And that was the end of it, as far as the ESPN Patriots Alleged Cheating Opus is concerned. There was no statement from the league office denying any changes to the statement. There was no apparent effort to procure the original statement, if there was one.

If Martz is right, that’s a huge deal. If the NFL changed in any way a statement from Martz that was used to placate Senator Arlen Specter and to block a Congressional investigation, this is the kind of thing that could turn the NFL into FIFA.
Now that, my friends, is big.
I've always given the NFL FO the benefit of the doubt and assumed some level of baseline competence, if not expertise, at what they do.

I try to look for reasonable motivations behind their actions and for clearly intended outcomes to those actions that make some obvious amount of common sense.

I may just have to rethink that.

 
Taping them isn't, and taping them during a game to use immediately in real-time to gain a competitive advantage surely wasn't and isn't.

Wrong. Taping signals from the sidelines is against the rules. Taping the exact same signals from a room overlooking the sidelines with a zoom lens is allowed.

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

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-patriots-opponents-wont-let-spygate-die-but-did-it-really-matter/

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/09/21/patriots_wont_be_hit_harder/
Taping is legal.

Taping signals isn't.

And I'd suggest you read the ESPN OTL article if you think the Patriots didn't use that information during games, real-time.

Or else they're lying, too.
From your excerpt, they don't claim they used the signals in real time, but rather used previously taped signals. Of course they used the information they gathered in games. Stealing signals is a universal truth across any sport that uses signals. And of course any information gained by stealing signals is used in games.

But other than the taping scheme being more efficient, and the taping occurring from a location expressly forbidden, what makes this occurrence of stealing signals any worse than every other instance of the same?
Taping signals itself is illegal.

The taping of game action and such is perfectly legal with restrictions on where they can do it from. But the taping of signals is and always has been 100% illegal. The only people who don't understand that are the ones who want to believe Belicheck just misinterpreted a rule.

The article is a good read. It's not slanted because it makes the league look as bad as the Patriots. An entirely corrupt situation on both ends.
Please show everyone where it says this in the rulebook.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d802456c2/printable/belichick-speaks-with-goodell-apologizes-for-videotape-flap

The only rules cited talk about filming location.
I don't know how to do searches for specific NFL rules. There have been numerous articles out there saying that teams often try to steal signals, but when videotaping equipment is used, it becomes illegal. And that's why the Patriots got punished so hard... not because they videotaped from an illegal spot, but because the act itself was cheating.

That rule is the one that Belichek says he "misinterpreted" but it refers only to in-game taping. And I understand that Patriots fans have been arguing those same semantics for years.

I'd encourage you to read the article.
You are making claims that are not in the rulebook. Period. If you are so sure that it is there, please provide a reference. Otherwise, stop saying there is a rule, when there isn't.
Go ahead, keep toting the company line. Patriots fans want to believe that the team was punished for doing something legal from an illegal place. They want to believe that doing it provided them no competitive advantage. And they want to believe that we know the extent of everything that went on. And they'll pin it on a loosely interpreted rule that Belichek cited 7 years ago.

The article blows most of that up, and it blows up both the Patriots' actions and the NFL's handling of them. The Patriots come off looking the same way they have for about 10 years, only this time with more details about what they did and how they did it. The NFL comes off looking truly corrupt.

The Patriots found something they could "misinterpret" and turned it into something bigger, and the NFL - as usual - screwed that one up too. And if that played into how they handled this one, it shouldn't surprise anyone.
Dude, how hard is it provide a reference to a rule that you keep saying is there? You are like the Ravens falsely whining about the Patriots illegal formations.

Please provide a link to the supposed "rule" you say is there.

I've already provided a link before that clearly disputes your claim. :shrug:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d802456c2/printable/belichick-speaks-with-goodell-apologizes-for-videotape-flap

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top