Patriots stealing signals? (1 Viewer)

[randall146]

so it would have been legal for the guy to sit in the front row, videotape, and pass signals to someone else who is on the sidelines?

No. Why would you think it would be? Doing so would add violating the stadiums ban on people recording the games to violating the NFL rule against teams recording the play callers.

"The rule is 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," the league said in a statement from spokesman Greg Aiello.

Doesn't say anything about in the stands.

Even from the stands, though, taping and signalling constitutes a violation of the ban on rebroadcast without the express written consent of the New York Jets and the National Football League.

 

[GregR_2]

so it would have been legal for the guy to sit in the front row, videotape, and pass signals to someone else who is on the sidelines?

No. Why would you think it would be? Doing so would add violating the stadiums ban on people recording the games to violating the NFL rule against teams recording the play callers.

"The rule is 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," the league said in a statement from spokesman Greg Aiello.

Doesn't say anything about in the stands.

Even from the stands, though, taping and signalling constitutes a violation of the ban on rebroadcast without the express written consent of the New York Jets and the National Football League.

So then the Pats lose a draft pick AND their season tickets.

 

[g5jamz]

Picking up a waived player from an opposing team is NOT deemed against the rules...Reche Caldwell or not. Oh...but we forget that the Pats brought in Tim Dwight didn't we.

Pats got caught cheating and should get penalized...period.

They have what...two number 1s in 2008? One will do.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Is this illegal? Why? I think it should be acceptable. If your signals get stolen, then make up a better signalling process. Can someone explain to me why this is so bad?

Because fans want to see a game played on the field, and not dependent on who has the best zooming video camera, parabolic mikes or other listening devices, or any other piece of electronics that is more appropriate for use by the CIA than by a football team.I've got no problem if a coach watches the other team signaling in plays and tries to deduce what their signs are. When teams start hiring lip readers (as has been done in the past), or bringing electronics into it to spy on other teams, what in the hell does that have to do with football? At some point the league has to say enough is enough, and I think they picked a pretty obvious place to put the line. Don't you?

No. If they both have access to the technology, it should even out. Shouldn't it? I'm sure I'm just being obtuse here, but it's not intentional.

Yes, you're correct, you're being very obtuse. The point of my post was that part about "more appropriate for use by the CIA than by a football team" and not the part about who has the best.Football is not a game of electronic spyware countermeasures. It's an athletic sport. You know, athletics? A competition of physical skill and ability? Not a competition of videographers, code breakers, and lip readers?

OK, so where is the athletics in studying game footage? Football players do that.Can you explain to me the difference between using technology (cameras, various AV equipment) to study game footage in a historical context before the game to predict your opponent's tendencies and likely play calling over using technology (cameras various AV equipment) to study game footage in a real time context as the game happens to predict your opponent's tendencies and likely play calling?

Isn't it obvious that using electronics to spy on the actual calls when they are being made is different than using electronics to study your opponent and then having to use your own eyes and mind when on the field?If what I'm saying isn't common sense, then you tell me where the line should be drawn. You're saying it's ok to use zoom lenses to zoom in on the play callers to learn the calls and flash them to your own team. Is it ok to hire lipreaders to help out? Is it ok to have parabolic mikes and laser mikes? Is it ok to hire some kid from MIT to come hack the other team's headset frequency so you can hear the play call? Is it ok to install radios into all of your player's helmets? Is it ok to put a camera and recording devices in the locker rooms so you can hear what their half-time adjustments are? Is it ok to have someone hide in their locker room rather than using electronics? Is it ok to dress someone up in the opposing staff's attire and send them over to stand on their sideline and signal back what they find out?Where in that list do you propose the line be drawn, and on what basis did you decide to draw it where you did?

I think I'll be won over if you can tell me the major difference between players watching game film of an opponent and all the other stuff. It's all use of technology and all of it has applications on the field. I don't think it can be prevented, is why I think it should be allowed. How do we know more crazy stuff isn't happening? I don't think I'm right, I just want someone to help me understand.

I already told you the difference is one is preparing yourself for a game and leaving you only your mental and physical ability to actually perform with on the field, and the other is spying. Now how about answering my question? If where I'm saying the line should be drawn is incorrect, then enlighten us where it should be drawn and why you put it where you do.

All of it should be allowed. Your explanation of spying vs "preparing yourself" is poor. "preparing yourself" IS spying.

 

[sts911911]

Is this illegal? Why? I think it should be acceptable. If your signals get stolen, then make up a better signalling process. Can someone explain to me why this is so bad?

Because fans want to see a game played on the field, and not dependent on who has the best zooming video camera, parabolic mikes or other listening devices, or any other piece of electronics that is more appropriate for use by the CIA than by a football team.I've got no problem if a coach watches the other team signaling in plays and tries to deduce what their signs are. When teams start hiring lip readers (as has been done in the past), or bringing electronics into it to spy on other teams, what in the hell does that have to do with football? At some point the league has to say enough is enough, and I think they picked a pretty obvious place to put the line. Don't you?

No. If they both have access to the technology, it should even out. Shouldn't it? I'm sure I'm just being obtuse here, but it's not intentional.

Yes, you're correct, you're being very obtuse. The point of my post was that part about "more appropriate for use by the CIA than by a football team" and not the part about who has the best.Football is not a game of electronic spyware countermeasures. It's an athletic sport. You know, athletics? A competition of physical skill and ability? Not a competition of videographers, code breakers, and lip readers?

OK, so where is the athletics in studying game footage? Football players do that.Can you explain to me the difference between using technology (cameras, various AV equipment) to study game footage in a historical context before the game to predict your opponent's tendencies and likely play calling over using technology (cameras various AV equipment) to study game footage in a real time context as the game happens to predict your opponent's tendencies and likely play calling?

Isn't it obvious that using electronics to spy on the actual calls when they are being made is different than using electronics to study your opponent and then having to use your own eyes and mind when on the field?If what I'm saying isn't common sense, then you tell me where the line should be drawn. You're saying it's ok to use zoom lenses to zoom in on the play callers to learn the calls and flash them to your own team. Is it ok to hire lipreaders to help out? Is it ok to have parabolic mikes and laser mikes? Is it ok to hire some kid from MIT to come hack the other team's headset frequency so you can hear the play call? Is it ok to install radios into all of your player's helmets? Is it ok to put a camera and recording devices in the locker rooms so you can hear what their half-time adjustments are? Is it ok to have someone hide in their locker room rather than using electronics? Is it ok to dress someone up in the opposing staff's attire and send them over to stand on their sideline and signal back what they find out?Where in that list do you propose the line be drawn, and on what basis did you decide to draw it where you did?

I think I'll be won over if you can tell me the major difference between players watching game film of an opponent and all the other stuff. It's all use of technology and all of it has applications on the field. I don't think it can be prevented, is why I think it should be allowed. How do we know more crazy stuff isn't happening? I don't think I'm right, I just want someone to help me understand.

I already told you the difference is one is preparing yourself for a game and leaving you only your mental and physical ability to actually perform with on the field, and the other is spying. Now how about answering my question? If where I'm saying the line should be drawn is incorrect, then enlighten us where it should be drawn and why you put it where you do.

All of it should be allowed. Your explanation of spying vs "preparing yourself" is poor. "preparing yourself" IS spying.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Is this illegal? Why? I think it should be acceptable. If your signals get stolen, then make up a better signalling process. Can someone explain to me why this is so bad?

Because fans want to see a game played on the field, and not dependent on who has the best zooming video camera, parabolic mikes or other listening devices, or any other piece of electronics that is more appropriate for use by the CIA than by a football team.I've got no problem if a coach watches the other team signaling in plays and tries to deduce what their signs are. When teams start hiring lip readers (as has been done in the past), or bringing electronics into it to spy on other teams, what in the hell does that have to do with football? At some point the league has to say enough is enough, and I think they picked a pretty obvious place to put the line. Don't you?

No. If they both have access to the technology, it should even out. Shouldn't it? I'm sure I'm just being obtuse here, but it's not intentional.

Yes, you're correct, you're being very obtuse. The point of my post was that part about "more appropriate for use by the CIA than by a football team" and not the part about who has the best.Football is not a game of electronic spyware countermeasures. It's an athletic sport. You know, athletics? A competition of physical skill and ability? Not a competition of videographers, code breakers, and lip readers?

OK, so where is the athletics in studying game footage? Football players do that.Can you explain to me the difference between using technology (cameras, various AV equipment) to study game footage in a historical context before the game to predict your opponent's tendencies and likely play calling over using technology (cameras various AV equipment) to study game footage in a real time context as the game happens to predict your opponent's tendencies and likely play calling?

Isn't it obvious that using electronics to spy on the actual calls when they are being made is different than using electronics to study your opponent and then having to use your own eyes and mind when on the field?If what I'm saying isn't common sense, then you tell me where the line should be drawn. You're saying it's ok to use zoom lenses to zoom in on the play callers to learn the calls and flash them to your own team. Is it ok to hire lipreaders to help out? Is it ok to have parabolic mikes and laser mikes? Is it ok to hire some kid from MIT to come hack the other team's headset frequency so you can hear the play call? Is it ok to install radios into all of your player's helmets? Is it ok to put a camera and recording devices in the locker rooms so you can hear what their half-time adjustments are? Is it ok to have someone hide in their locker room rather than using electronics? Is it ok to dress someone up in the opposing staff's attire and send them over to stand on their sideline and signal back what they find out?Where in that list do you propose the line be drawn, and on what basis did you decide to draw it where you did?

I think I'll be won over if you can tell me the major difference between players watching game film of an opponent and all the other stuff. It's all use of technology and all of it has applications on the field. I don't think it can be prevented, is why I think it should be allowed. How do we know more crazy stuff isn't happening? I don't think I'm right, I just want someone to help me understand.

I already told you the difference is one is preparing yourself for a game and leaving you only your mental and physical ability to actually perform with on the field, and the other is spying. Now how about answering my question? If where I'm saying the line should be drawn is incorrect, then enlighten us where it should be drawn and why you put it where you do.

All of it should be allowed. Your explanation of spying vs "preparing yourself" is poor. "preparing yourself" IS spying.

Ohh hush

 

[GregR_2]

...All of it should be allowed. Your explanation of spying vs "preparing yourself" is poor. "preparing yourself" IS spying.

Yep.

 

[jonessed]

Ohh hush

Are you trying to be an idiot here? The advantage difference between watching a recording to prep for a game and recording and sending signals in real-time is pretty clear. If the Pats have been caught before, have been warned before, and continued to do it they need to get punished. Their coaches were conspiring to cheat. That's clearly not something to take lightly and thankfully the NFL is not taking it lightly.

 

[GregR_2]

Ohh hush

Are you trying to be an idiot here? The advantage difference between watching a recording to prep for a game and recording and sending signals in real-time is pretty clear. If the Pats have been caught before, have been warned before, and continued to do it they need to get punished. Their coaches were conspiring to cheat. That's clearly not something to take lightly and thankfully the NFL is not taking it lightly.

Don't humor the proven trolls with responses, it just encourages them.

 

[Workhorse]

Hey, if they broke the rule, then they deserve the penalty.

But can someone explain to me the honest practical difference between videotaping from the sidelines and the COMMON practice of placing a coach/scout in the press box with a set of binoculars who tries to steal opposing coaching signals? Because teams do that all the time. One is "cheating" and one isn't but isn't it really kind of an arbitrary distinction between the two? Both methods employ technology to steal opposing signal calls. Period.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Ohh hush

Are you trying to be an idiot here? The advantage difference between watching a recording to prep for a game and recording and sending signals in real-time is pretty clear.

Please don't call me names. Thanks! I see very little difference between the two situations you listed. One is real time and one is beforehand? Is that really where the line is drawn?

 

[phthalatemagic]

Hey, if they broke the rule, then they deserve the penalty.But can someone explain to me the honest practical difference between videotaping from the sidelines and the COMMON practice of placing a coach/scout in the press box with a set of binoculars who tries to steal opposing coaching signals? Because teams do that all the time. One is "cheating" and one isn't but isn't it really kind of an arbitrary distinction between the two? Both methods employ technology to steal opposing signal calls. Period.

Beware, some jerkhole is going to call you a troll for asking questions too...

 

[TD Ryan]

Hey, if they broke the rule, then they deserve the penalty.But can someone explain to me the honest practical difference between videotaping from the sidelines and the COMMON practice of placing a coach/scout in the press box with a set of binoculars who tries to steal opposing coaching signals? Because teams do that all the time. One is "cheating" and one isn't but isn't it really kind of an arbitrary distinction between the two? Both methods employ technology to steal opposing signal calls. Period.

again, if the Pats broke the rules, then they pay the price.but like you, I am interested in knowing what exactly is COMMON practice and just how far NE has crossed the line.There's a lot of nasty, dirty, underhanded things that go on throughout the NFL.I'd really like the truth to come out on all of it so I can have better perspective on just how egregious NE's actions were.I am optimistic that this event will be the catalyst for numerous reports on what exactly goes on.

 

[1huskerfan]

But can someone explain to me the honest practical difference between videotaping from the sidelines and the COMMON practice of placing a coach/scout in the press box with a set of binoculars who tries to steal opposing coaching signals? Because teams do that all the time. One is "cheating" and one isn't but isn't it really kind of an arbitrary distinction between the two? Both methods employ technology to steal opposing signal calls. Period.

I think we have a winner.

 

[Pyramid Scheme]

Hey, if they broke the rule, then they deserve the penalty.But can someone explain to me the honest practical difference between videotaping from the sidelines and the COMMON practice of placing a coach/scout in the press box with a set of binoculars who tries to steal opposing coaching signals? Because teams do that all the time. One is "cheating" and one isn't but isn't it really kind of an arbitrary distinction between the two? Both methods employ technology to steal opposing signal calls. Period.

The difference is having the record. If you're allowed to tape, you have a library of the signs for every call. If you're not, then you have to rely on your own memory and what you can pick up in-game. This puts the would-be sign stealers in a much fairer position with respect to the players.As a general rule, there's nothing wrong with stealing signs. It's a time-honored tradition in American sports. But when you let teams compile electronic records, then you put teams in the position of having to develop a system flexible and simple enough to be changed every week without confusing the players, while at the same time complex enough that it can't be cracked during the game. Not an easy task, I imagine.The current rule doesn't protect the careless, but it does prevent football from having to hire Intelligence Coordinators.

 

[bostonfred]

For what it's worth, I don't think Pats fans are complaining that the Jets brought in Caldwell and Hawkins. Every team does this. The reason it's being brought up is to point out that this kind of extra-curricular stuff happens all the time in the NFL. Yes, using a video camera is against the rules, and it should be, and if the Patriots broke that rule, it's embarrassing, and they should be punished.

As for those up in arms about how this is cheating, and debriefing an opposing player isn't, that's ridiculous. The reason there's no rule against debriefing an opposing player is that it's impossible to prevent someone from talking to another team once they've been released. What if the Jets really needed a receiver, or a defensive back, and actually wanted to bring in Caldwell or Hawkins for an interview? But just because there's no rule against it, doesn't mean it's not every bit as underhanded, or doesn't impact the game. Remember when the Bills actually signed Lawyer Milloy, and after the game he bragged about how he was telling them what pass to throw into specific coverages against the Patriots in their 31-0 opening day shutout?

Similarly, there were reports that the Colts turned up the heat in the RCA Dome last year when they found out how many of the Patriots had the flu. Nobody really talks about that, even though it may have cost the Patriots a fourth Superbowl appearance, partially because it's unprovable, and partially because there's no explicit rule against it. But if it's true, is it every bit as underhanded as stealing signals? Of course.

Teams cheat. In this case, there's a rule, there's an unspecified penalty, and if it's determined that the Patriots broke that rule, they will be subject to that penalty, and probably on the harsher side of the range of punishments the NFL might give because Goodell seems to be cracking down across the board. What more do you want?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

But can someone explain to me the honest practical difference between videotaping from the sidelines and the COMMON practice of placing a coach/scout in the press box with a set of binoculars who tries to steal opposing coaching signals? Because teams do that all the time. One is "cheating" and one isn't but isn't it really kind of an arbitrary distinction between the two? Both methods employ technology to steal opposing signal calls. Period.

Being able to analyze and adjust according to the information, obviously.See post #216 for some common sense regarding the issue.

 

[1huskerfan]

Hey, if they broke the rule, then they deserve the penalty.

But can someone explain to me the honest practical difference between videotaping from the sidelines and the COMMON practice of placing a coach/scout in the press box with a set of binoculars who tries to steal opposing coaching signals? Because teams do that all the time. One is "cheating" and one isn't but isn't it really kind of an arbitrary distinction between the two? Both methods employ technology to steal opposing signal calls. Period.

The difference is having the record. If you're allowed to tape, you have a library of the signs for every call. If you're not, then you have to rely on your own memory and what you can pick up in-game. This puts the would-be sign stealers in a much fairer position with respect to the players.As a general rule, there's nothing wrong with stealing signs. It's a time-honored tradition in American sports. But when you let teams compile electronic records, then you put teams in the position of having to develop a system flexible and simple enough to be changed every week without confusing the players, while at the same time complex enough that it can't be cracked during the game. Not an easy task, I imagine.

The current rule doesn't protect the careless, but it does prevent football from having to hire Intelligence Coordinators.

It's easier than you are imagining.

 

[Shrek]

Love the damage control/excuses by Pat fans in this thread. Seriously, they probably would have won anyway. But are some of you really such blind homers that you can't acknowledge that:

A) They may have gained an unfair advantage by doing something that the NFL has previously warned teams NOT to do, as it is cheating in their eyes, and

B) Your beloved organization isn't the bunch of choirboys they make themselves out to be?

There has been a lot of evidence that this may be true, including previous incidents. If I was a Pats fan, I would be disappointed in my team if they felt that they had to do this to win. No matter how people try to defend this behavior, it boils down to this. Any team that would do this is obviously uncomfortable with their chances of winning using strictly conventional methods.

I love these kind of posts. Why shouldn't someone defend their team? That's why they are called fans. I suppose you are totally unbiased with regard to your team. Blind homerism is better than blind hate. So get off your pedastal, and get real. Every NFL team tries to get EVERY advantage they can.I recall more than a few instances where these type of things have happened before with other teams (including the Jets). How about speculation before the game that the Jets brought Caldwell or some other NE players in, so they could learn the Defensive plays of the Pats?

Guys who are making this out to be some kind of major crime are the one who need to take the glasses off. The media is guilty of making the Pats out to be choir boys, not NE fans or players. Real NE fans know that BB and the organization are warriors and not choir boys. Its a violent sport with ALOT at stake....NE fans and players realize that. Give NE a slap on the wrist and move on....

Please stop. You sound like a fool.This is a typical response of a child who gets caught doing something wrong.

Step 1- Denial.

Step 2- Try to shift blame. "It's someone else's fault." Or "Well everyone else is doing it too."

Step 3- Bring up someone else's alleged misdeeds to divert attention.

Incidentally, if the Jets did try to bring Caldwell in to "debrief" him, I wouldn't agree with that either if it was against the rules. By the way, has the league's front office made a point of sending out warnings to teams that the practice of bringing in players that have been cut from other teams is against the rules? Have they warned that this type of action is punishable? Are you trying to compare apples to oranges in an attempt to shift the attention away from where it currently is?

I've never once said in this thread that I think the Patriots are guilty. I can wait until the league investigation makes that claim. What I'm marveling at is the fact that at this phase of the game, Pats fans are squirming like greased eels, trying to justify this type of behavior or defend it. I actually hope the league finds out that the Pats didn't do this. Why? Because then it will be fun to watch the same people who defended this type of behavior in this thread come out and pound their chests about how they didn't need it in the first place.

 

[Shrek]

Typical thread about the Patriots involving bashers of everything Patriot and defenders of everything Patriot. The minute this story broke you knew exactly how these posts would roll.The bottomline is after this investigation if it is proven that the Pats did infact break rules that were well documented they deserve whatever penalty the league feels meets the crime. It's one thing trying to get a competitive advantage but if they continued this nonsense after being warned there should be zero excuses as they have no one to blame but themselves. No pleading ignorance or everyone else does it BS...accept the punishment and move on. Hopefully that's not the case (and if not the organization deserves an apology for the PR damage) but if it is they don't deserve to be defended for these actions.

Seriously, nice to see a Pats fan reply based in honesty and sensibility.

 

[jonessed]

For what it's worth, I don't think Pats fans are complaining that the Jets brought in Caldwell and Hawkins. Every team does this. The reason it's being brought up is to point out that this kind of extra-curricular stuff happens all the time in the NFL. Yes, using a video camera is against the rules, and it should be, and if the Patriots broke that rule, it's embarrassing, and they should be punished.

As for those up in arms about how this is cheating, and debriefing an opposing player isn't, that's ridiculous. The reason there's no rule against debriefing an opposing player is that it's impossible to prevent someone from talking to another team once they've been released. What if the Jets really needed a receiver, or a defensive back, and actually wanted to bring in Caldwell or Hawkins for an interview? But just because there's no rule against it, doesn't mean it's not every bit as underhanded, or doesn't impact the game. Remember when the Bills actually signed Lawyer Milloy, and after the game he bragged about how he was telling them what pass to throw into specific coverages against the Patriots in their 31-0 opening day shutout?

Similarly, there were reports that the Colts turned up the heat in the RCA Dome last year when they found out how many of the Patriots had the flu. Nobody really talks about that, even though it may have cost the Patriots a fourth Superbowl appearance, partially because it's unprovable, and partially because there's no explicit rule against it. But if it's true, is it every bit as underhanded as stealing signals? Of course.

Teams cheat. In this case, there's a rule, there's an unspecified penalty, and if it's determined that the Patriots broke that rule, they will be subject to that penalty, and probably on the harsher side of the range of punishments the NFL might give because Goodell seems to be cracking down across the board. What more do you want?

 

[Workhorse]

Hey, if they broke the rule, then they deserve the penalty.But can someone explain to me the honest practical difference between videotaping from the sidelines and the COMMON practice of placing a coach/scout in the press box with a set of binoculars who tries to steal opposing coaching signals? Because teams do that all the time. One is "cheating" and one isn't but isn't it really kind of an arbitrary distinction between the two? Both methods employ technology to steal opposing signal calls. Period.

The difference is having the record. If you're allowed to tape, you have a library of the signs for every call. If you're not, then you have to rely on your own memory and what you can pick up in-game. This puts the would-be sign stealers in a much fairer position with respect to the players.As a general rule, there's nothing wrong with stealing signs. It's a time-honored tradition in American sports. But when you let teams compile electronic records, then you put teams in the position of having to develop a system flexible and simple enough to be changed every week without confusing the players, while at the same time complex enough that it can't be cracked during the game. Not an easy task, I imagine.The current rule doesn't protect the careless, but it does prevent football from having to hire Intelligence Coordinators.

Ever seen an NFL facility and the database and computer technology employed to break down game tape? That's EXACTLY what the NFL has become. A group of Intelligence Coordinators.

 

[Pyramid Scheme]

Hey, if they broke the rule, then they deserve the penalty.

But can someone explain to me the honest practical difference between videotaping from the sidelines and the COMMON practice of placing a coach/scout in the press box with a set of binoculars who tries to steal opposing coaching signals? Because teams do that all the time. One is "cheating" and one isn't but isn't it really kind of an arbitrary distinction between the two? Both methods employ technology to steal opposing signal calls. Period.

The difference is having the record. If you're allowed to tape, you have a library of the signs for every call. If you're not, then you have to rely on your own memory and what you can pick up in-game. This puts the would-be sign stealers in a much fairer position with respect to the players.As a general rule, there's nothing wrong with stealing signs. It's a time-honored tradition in American sports. But when you let teams compile electronic records, then you put teams in the position of having to develop a system flexible and simple enough to be changed every week without confusing the players, while at the same time complex enough that it can't be cracked during the game. Not an easy task, I imagine.

The current rule doesn't protect the careless, but it does prevent football from having to hire Intelligence Coordinators.

It's easier than you are imagining.

I'll bite, then. How, exactly?

 

[Pyramid Scheme]

Hey, if they broke the rule, then they deserve the penalty.But can someone explain to me the honest practical difference between videotaping from the sidelines and the COMMON practice of placing a coach/scout in the press box with a set of binoculars who tries to steal opposing coaching signals? Because teams do that all the time. One is "cheating" and one isn't but isn't it really kind of an arbitrary distinction between the two? Both methods employ technology to steal opposing signal calls. Period.

The difference is having the record. If you're allowed to tape, you have a library of the signs for every call. If you're not, then you have to rely on your own memory and what you can pick up in-game. This puts the would-be sign stealers in a much fairer position with respect to the players.As a general rule, there's nothing wrong with stealing signs. It's a time-honored tradition in American sports. But when you let teams compile electronic records, then you put teams in the position of having to develop a system flexible and simple enough to be changed every week without confusing the players, while at the same time complex enough that it can't be cracked during the game. Not an easy task, I imagine.The current rule doesn't protect the careless, but it does prevent football from having to hire Intelligence Coordinators.

Ever seen an NFL facility and the database and computer technology employed to break down game tape? That's EXACTLY what the NFL has become. A group of Intelligence Coordinators.

I meant a coach whose area is expertise is cryptography and signals intelligence. Obviously the best way to hack an offense is to intercept the call transmitted into the QB's helmet. Should that be legal? Should you be able to use parabolic mikes to eavesdrop as the QB gives the play in the huddle?

 

[Workhorse]

Hey, if they broke the rule, then they deserve the penalty.

But can someone explain to me the honest practical difference between videotaping from the sidelines and the COMMON practice of placing a coach/scout in the press box with a set of binoculars who tries to steal opposing coaching signals? Because teams do that all the time. One is "cheating" and one isn't but isn't it really kind of an arbitrary distinction between the two? Both methods employ technology to steal opposing signal calls. Period.

The difference is having the record. If you're allowed to tape, you have a library of the signs for every call. If you're not, then you have to rely on your own memory and what you can pick up in-game. This puts the would-be sign stealers in a much fairer position with respect to the players.As a general rule, there's nothing wrong with stealing signs. It's a time-honored tradition in American sports. But when you let teams compile electronic records, then you put teams in the position of having to develop a system flexible and simple enough to be changed every week without confusing the players, while at the same time complex enough that it can't be cracked during the game. Not an easy task, I imagine.

The current rule doesn't protect the careless, but it does prevent football from having to hire Intelligence Coordinators.

It's easier than you are imagining.

I'll bite, then. How, exactly?

Well, Peter King was just on ESPN Radio saying that one team, when playing the Colts, had a series of color-coded bracelets with different play calls on them that they mixed up during the game, due to the Colts previously demonstrated ability to steal their play calls. Rex Ryan was the coach referenced, I believe.

 

[1huskerfan]

Hey, if they broke the rule, then they deserve the penalty.

But can someone explain to me the honest practical difference between videotaping from the sidelines and the COMMON practice of placing a coach/scout in the press box with a set of binoculars who tries to steal opposing coaching signals? Because teams do that all the time. One is "cheating" and one isn't but isn't it really kind of an arbitrary distinction between the two? Both methods employ technology to steal opposing signal calls. Period.

The difference is having the record. If you're allowed to tape, you have a library of the signs for every call. If you're not, then you have to rely on your own memory and what you can pick up in-game. This puts the would-be sign stealers in a much fairer position with respect to the players.As a general rule, there's nothing wrong with stealing signs. It's a time-honored tradition in American sports. But when you let teams compile electronic records, then you put teams in the position of having to develop a system flexible and simple enough to be changed every week without confusing the players, while at the same time complex enough that it can't be cracked during the game. Not an easy task, I imagine.

The current rule doesn't protect the careless, but it does prevent football from having to hire Intelligence Coordinators.

It's easier than you are imagining.

I'll bite, then. How, exactly?

I already stated in an earlier post, multiple senders, situation based indicators would be a start. When someone is trying to steal information you give them information overload. More often than not, they end up wasting resources.

 

[Pyramid Scheme]

Hey, if they broke the rule, then they deserve the penalty.

But can someone explain to me the honest practical difference between videotaping from the sidelines and the COMMON practice of placing a coach/scout in the press box with a set of binoculars who tries to steal opposing coaching signals? Because teams do that all the time. One is "cheating" and one isn't but isn't it really kind of an arbitrary distinction between the two? Both methods employ technology to steal opposing signal calls. Period.

The difference is having the record. If you're allowed to tape, you have a library of the signs for every call. If you're not, then you have to rely on your own memory and what you can pick up in-game. This puts the would-be sign stealers in a much fairer position with respect to the players.As a general rule, there's nothing wrong with stealing signs. It's a time-honored tradition in American sports. But when you let teams compile electronic records, then you put teams in the position of having to develop a system flexible and simple enough to be changed every week without confusing the players, while at the same time complex enough that it can't be cracked during the game. Not an easy task, I imagine.

The current rule doesn't protect the careless, but it does prevent football from having to hire Intelligence Coordinators.

It's easier than you are imagining.

I'll bite, then. How, exactly?

Well, Peter King was just on ESPN Radio saying that one team, when playing the Colts, had a series of color-coded bracelets with different play calls on them that they mixed up during the game, due to the Colts previously demonstrated ability to steal their play calls. Rex Ryan was the coach referenced, I believe.

That makes sense; the only way to make the system unbreakable from the signals themselves is to use a one-time pad.The problem with one-time pads, though, is your agents have to have copies. Wonder if any of those bracelets got slipped off wrists while somebody was at the bottom of a pile.

 

[Pyramid Scheme]

Hey, if they broke the rule, then they deserve the penalty.

But can someone explain to me the honest practical difference between videotaping from the sidelines and the COMMON practice of placing a coach/scout in the press box with a set of binoculars who tries to steal opposing coaching signals? Because teams do that all the time. One is "cheating" and one isn't but isn't it really kind of an arbitrary distinction between the two? Both methods employ technology to steal opposing signal calls. Period.

The difference is having the record. If you're allowed to tape, you have a library of the signs for every call. If you're not, then you have to rely on your own memory and what you can pick up in-game. This puts the would-be sign stealers in a much fairer position with respect to the players.As a general rule, there's nothing wrong with stealing signs. It's a time-honored tradition in American sports. But when you let teams compile electronic records, then you put teams in the position of having to develop a system flexible and simple enough to be changed every week without confusing the players, while at the same time complex enough that it can't be cracked during the game. Not an easy task, I imagine.

The current rule doesn't protect the careless, but it does prevent football from having to hire Intelligence Coordinators.

It's easier than you are imagining.

I'll bite, then. How, exactly?

I already stated in an earlier post, multiple senders, situation based indicators would be a start. When someone is trying to steal information you give them information overload. More often than not, they end up wasting resources.

That works if you're having to do it in real time, but with a complete record and a PC, you have plenty of resources--and plenty of time--to crack such a system.

 

[TD Ryan]

Well, Peter King was just on ESPN Radio saying that one team, when playing the Colts, had a series of color-coded bracelets with different play calls on them that they mixed up during the game, due to the Colts previously demonstrated ability to steal their play calls. Rex Ryan was the coach referenced, I believe.

thanks.is this really shocking to anyone?like I posted above.every team "steals" plays and signals.NE has just added modern technology to the equation.Nope, doesn't make it right. They should be punished and even made and example of.Maybe a 1st round pick WOULD make teams reconsider their tactic.and Maybe it will just make them better/more covert at it all.Either way, I find it even more amusing the Mr. Competition Committee, Bill Polian could be involved in such underhanded tactics.The very committee the will pass judgment on NE? that's a joke too.Which is why the NFL needs to find out exactly how far reaching this all is and find out a way to stop it.Or, allow it all across the board for everyone.

 

[Wilbur Wood]

To those that think that electronic spying is acceptable and not too different than viewing with one's own eyes from the booth, than I'm sure that it should be acceptable to invest in some high tech spook equipment that allows technicians in the booth to "real-time" eavesdrop on the radio signals sent into the QB's helmet and relay coverage info accordingly to your defensive captain.

 

[shakeybarn]

If guilty,.. the Patriot team relegated to Serie B (aka the NFL Europe) for one year. NFL has had enough with Vick, Goddell want's a squeky clean league.... and as minimal press. Just because everyone is doing it one way or another, it's not right. Win the right way. Don't think it contributed much to the drubbing, nor the 2nd matchup between these two teams. But it's cheating... otherwise, share each other's playbooks, where does it stop.... NFL should do their best to eliminate this, but not go overboard since it's impact on the game overall is minimal. It's an ethics thing. It's like players that smoke marijuana... has nothing to do with the game, unless they get arrested for it, who would know/care otherwise?

 

[1huskerfan]

Hey, if they broke the rule, then they deserve the penalty.

But can someone explain to me the honest practical difference between videotaping from the sidelines and the COMMON practice of placing a coach/scout in the press box with a set of binoculars who tries to steal opposing coaching signals? Because teams do that all the time. One is "cheating" and one isn't but isn't it really kind of an arbitrary distinction between the two? Both methods employ technology to steal opposing signal calls. Period.

The difference is having the record. If you're allowed to tape, you have a library of the signs for every call. If you're not, then you have to rely on your own memory and what you can pick up in-game. This puts the would-be sign stealers in a much fairer position with respect to the players.As a general rule, there's nothing wrong with stealing signs. It's a time-honored tradition in American sports. But when you let teams compile electronic records, then you put teams in the position of having to develop a system flexible and simple enough to be changed every week without confusing the players, while at the same time complex enough that it can't be cracked during the game. Not an easy task, I imagine.

The current rule doesn't protect the careless, but it does prevent football from having to hire Intelligence Coordinators.

It's easier than you are imagining.

I'll bite, then. How, exactly?

I already stated in an earlier post, multiple senders, situation based indicators would be a start. When someone is trying to steal information you give them information overload. More often than not, they end up wasting resources.

That works if you're having to do it in real time, but with a complete record and a PC, you have plenty of resources--and plenty of time--to crack such a system.

Trust me, you don't. You have to dedicate multiple personnel to even attempt to break it, and filtering the dummy signs/indicators from the real ones would be impossible in a 20 second span, especially with the multiple senders.

 

[jonessed]

If guilty,.. the Patriot team relegated to Serie B (aka the NFL Europe) for one year. NFL has had enough with Vick, Goddell want's a squeky clean league.... and as minimal press. Just because everyone is doing it one way or another, it's not right. Win the right way. Don't think it contributed much to the drubbing, nor the 2nd matchup between these two teams. But it's cheating... otherwise, share each other's playbooks, where does it stop.... NFL should do their best to eliminate this, but not go overboard since it's impact on the game overall is minimal. It's an ethics thing. It's like players that smoke marijuana... has nothing to do with the game, unless they get arrested for it, who would know/care otherwise?

 

[1huskerfan]

To those that think that electronic spying is acceptable and not too different than viewing with one's own eyes from the booth, than I'm sure that it should be acceptable to invest in some high tech spook equipment that allows technicians in the booth to "real-time" eavesdrop on the radio signals sent into the QB's helmet and relay coverage info accordingly to your defensive captain.

I think a critical thinking class is in order here.

 

[shakeybarn]

If guilty,.. the Patriot team relegated to Serie B (aka the NFL Europe) for one year. NFL has had enough with Vick, Goddell want's a squeky clean league.... and as minimal press. Just because everyone is doing it one way or another, it's not right. Win the right way. Don't think it contributed much to the drubbing, nor the 2nd matchup between these two teams. But it's cheating... otherwise, share each other's playbooks, where does it stop.... NFL should do their best to eliminate this, but not go overboard since it's impact on the game overall is minimal. It's an ethics thing. It's like players that smoke marijuana... has nothing to do with the game, unless they get arrested for it, who would know/care otherwise?

I'm saying the impact is minimal, and not that big a deal, but if the NFL knows about it, then they HAVE to do SOMETHING.

 

[shakeybarn]

To those that think that electronic spying is acceptable and not too different than viewing with one's own eyes from the booth, than I'm sure that it should be acceptable to invest in some high tech spook equipment that allows technicians in the booth to "real-time" eavesdrop on the radio signals sent into the QB's helmet and relay coverage info accordingly to your defensive captain.

I've wondered about that too... it's a basic RF transmission, right? Do they/can they scramble it. The most basic programmable scanner could pick up the signal.

 

[jonessed]

If guilty,.. the Patriot team relegated to Serie B (aka the NFL Europe) for one year. NFL has had enough with Vick, Goddell want's a squeky clean league.... and as minimal press. Just because everyone is doing it one way or another, it's not right. Win the right way. Don't think it contributed much to the drubbing, nor the 2nd matchup between these two teams. But it's cheating... otherwise, share each other's playbooks, where does it stop.... NFL should do their best to eliminate this, but not go overboard since it's impact on the game overall is minimal. It's an ethics thing. It's like players that smoke marijuana... has nothing to do with the game, unless they get arrested for it, who would know/care otherwise?

I'm saying the impact is minimal, and not that big a deal, but if the NFL knows about it, then they HAVE to do SOMETHING.

If the impact was not that big of a deal they wouldn't be doing it.

 

[AB in DC]

So basically, everyone on this thread has already decided that the Pats are guilty without seeing a single shred of evidence? Nice.

Worth repeating.Here are the only FACTS that we know:1) Someone on the field had a videocamera confiscated.2) That person was believed to have field credentials from the Patriots.That's it. Everything else on this thread is speculation and charatcter assassination.Hell, for all we know, it was someone affiliated with NFL Films who the Patriots' PR department hired to shoot some movies. That's about as likely as it being someone on the actual coaching staff. But everyone automatically assumes the worst, because hey, it's the Patriots, so it has to be something ditry and underhanded.My prediction is that the Patriots will get fined $50,000 for violating an NFL rule, and that's it. For there to be any larger penalty, there needs to be some seriously damning evidence on that videotape, as well as evidence that the Patriots football staff knew and approved of what was going on.

 

[shakeybarn]

So basically, everyone on this thread has already decided that the Pats are guilty without seeing a single shred of evidence? Nice.

Worth repeating.Here are the only FACTS that we know:1) Someone on the field had a videocamera confiscated.2) That person was believed to have field credentials from the Patriots.That's it. Everything else on this thread is speculation and charatcter assassination.Hell, for all we know, it was someone affiliated with NFL Films who the Patriots' PR department hired to shoot some movies. That's about as likely as it being someone on the actual coaching staff. But everyone automatically assumes the worst, because hey, it's the Patriots, so it has to be something ditry and underhanded.My prediction is that the Patriots will get fined $50,000 for violating an NFL rule, and that's it. For there to be any larger penalty, there needs to be some seriously damning evidence on that videotape, as well as evidence that the Patriots football staff knew and approved of what was going on.

ESPN is getting awful in truthful reporting, but did state from an unnamed NFL committee member that this was not the first time. Me thinks they've already warned the Pats on this, if so, expect decent punishment.

 

[1huskerfan]

But can someone explain to me the honest practical difference between videotaping from the sidelines and the COMMON practice of placing a coach/scout in the press box with a set of binoculars who tries to steal opposing coaching signals? Because teams do that all the time. One is "cheating" and one isn't but isn't it really kind of an arbitrary distinction between the two? Both methods employ technology to steal opposing signal calls. Period.

Being able to analyze and adjust according to the information, obviously.See post #216 for some common sense regarding the issue.

You lost your rite toplay the common sense card when you equated this to:(a) Paying off refs

(b) Poisoning your opponents food.

© Taking a lead pipe to your opponent at the supermarket.

I'm sure I am leaving out some of your other gems, this is just what I remember from the top of my head. Thanks for your input though.

 

[1huskerfan]

You should stick to pop warner if you don't know how to disguise your signs, or at the very least, hire someone who knows how. It amazes me that guys can reach this level without being able to do this.

That has absolutely nothing to do with my point. I was pointing out that stealing signals is a serious violation, in response to people that seem to think it can't help the Pats.Disguising signals has nothing to do with what I said.

It's really not.

If you are paying someone outside of your own coaching box and not on the sidelines with the players, or the players themselves - to get an advantage - you might as well be paying the refs.Its as bad food poising the other teams pregame meal or having someone take a led pipe to someones knee at the supermarket.

bump

 

[Pittsburgh United]

If guilty,.. the Patriot team relegated to Serie B (aka the NFL Europe) for one year. NFL has had enough with Vick, Goddell want's a squeky clean league.... and as minimal press. Just because everyone is doing it one way or another, it's not right. Win the right way. Don't think it contributed much to the drubbing, nor the 2nd matchup between these two teams. But it's cheating... otherwise, share each other's playbooks, where does it stop.... NFL should do their best to eliminate this, but not go overboard since it's impact on the game overall is minimal. It's an ethics thing. It's like players that smoke marijuana... has nothing to do with the game, unless they get arrested for it, who would know/care otherwise?

That's a great comparison. NE *is* the Juventus of the NFL, and should be treated similarly.

 

[Pyramid Scheme]

Hey, if they broke the rule, then they deserve the penalty.

But can someone explain to me the honest practical difference between videotaping from the sidelines and the COMMON practice of placing a coach/scout in the press box with a set of binoculars who tries to steal opposing coaching signals? Because teams do that all the time. One is "cheating" and one isn't but isn't it really kind of an arbitrary distinction between the two? Both methods employ technology to steal opposing signal calls. Period.

The difference is having the record. If you're allowed to tape, you have a library of the signs for every call. If you're not, then you have to rely on your own memory and what you can pick up in-game. This puts the would-be sign stealers in a much fairer position with respect to the players.As a general rule, there's nothing wrong with stealing signs. It's a time-honored tradition in American sports. But when you let teams compile electronic records, then you put teams in the position of having to develop a system flexible and simple enough to be changed every week without confusing the players, while at the same time complex enough that it can't be cracked during the game. Not an easy task, I imagine.

The current rule doesn't protect the careless, but it does prevent football from having to hire Intelligence Coordinators.

It's easier than you are imagining.

I'll bite, then. How, exactly?

I already stated in an earlier post, multiple senders, situation based indicators would be a start. When someone is trying to steal information you give them information overload. More often than not, they end up wasting resources.

That works if you're having to do it in real time, but with a complete record and a PC, you have plenty of resources--and plenty of time--to crack such a system.

Trust me, you don't. You have to dedicate multiple personnel to even attempt to break it, and filtering the dummy signs/indicators from the real ones would be impossible in a 20 second span, especially with the multiple senders.

I'll certainly believe that it's hard, and since I'm no cryptographer, I make no pretense of being able to do it myself. But it's unwise to say "never" in regard to such matters; the Allies won WWII in no small part because they cracked the "unbreakable" Enigma code.More to the point, if simple overload is enough to make the effort pointless, then there's no reason to have this rule. By the same token, though, there should then never be an instance where signals are successfully stolen, which evidently is not the case. I suppose the teams in question could just be grossly incompetent, or perhaps naive, but I find this conclusion hard to accept.

 

[Workhorse]

Info on the video dude:

According to an internal ESPN memo, the Patriots employee shooting Sunday’s game against the New York Jets was 26-year-old Matt Estrella, a video assistant in his fourth year with the team. The New Bedford native began his Patriots career as a video intern in 2004 and assumed his current full-time role in 2005. He’s a Fitchburg State grad who majored in communications and media with a concentration in video production.

 

[Pyramid Scheme]

Info on the video dude:

According to an internal ESPN memo, the Patriots employee shooting Sunday’s game against the New York Jets was 26-year-old Matt Estrella, a video assistant in his fourth year with the team. The New Bedford native began his Patriots career as a video intern in 2004 and assumed his current full-time role in 2005. He’s a Fitchburg State grad who majored in communications and media with a concentration in video production.

There. All he was going to do with the Jets signals was make a nice montage to the tune of "Do You Really Want to Hurt Me?"

 

[Kit Fisto]

So basically, everyone on this thread has already decided that the Pats are guilty without seeing a single shred of evidence? Nice.

Worth repeating.Here are the only FACTS that we know:1) Someone on the field had a videocamera confiscated.2) That person was believed to have field credentials from the Patriots.That's it. Everything else on this thread is speculation and charatcter assassination.Hell, for all we know, it was someone affiliated with NFL Films who the Patriots' PR department hired to shoot some movies. That's about as likely as it being someone on the actual coaching staff. But everyone automatically assumes the worst, because hey, it's the Patriots, so it has to be something ditry and underhanded.My prediction is that the Patriots will get fined $50,000 for violating an NFL rule, and that's it. For there to be any larger penalty, there needs to be some seriously damning evidence on that videotape, as well as evidence that the Patriots football staff knew and approved of what was going on.

I think alot of guys who are throwing stones at the Pats better be carefully about the glass houses they're living in. I didn't realize that the other 31 teams in the league were so squeaky clean... I guess being successful puts a big target on your back. I can live with that.I also wonder why other recently-successful teams like the Chargers, Steelers, Bears, Broncos etc. aren't complaining about the Pats stealing signals? It's just the Jets, Packers and Lions. Reeks of sour grapes to me.That said, if they did do something illegal, they should pay the price, learn from it and move on. But for people to be saying they're ashamed and would be embarrassed if it were their team? Taking something a little too serious much?

 

[jonessed]

So basically, everyone on this thread has already decided that the Pats are guilty without seeing a single shred of evidence? Nice.

Worth repeating.Here are the only FACTS that we know:

1) Someone on the field had a videocamera confiscated.

2) That person was believed to have field credentials from the Patriots.

That's it. Everything else on this thread is speculation and charatcter assassination.

Hell, for all we know, it was someone affiliated with NFL Films who the Patriots' PR department hired to shoot some movies. That's about as likely as it being someone on the actual coaching staff. But everyone automatically assumes the worst, because hey, it's the Patriots, so it has to be something ditry and underhanded.

My prediction is that the Patriots will get fined $50,000 for violating an NFL rule, and that's it. For there to be any larger penalty, there needs to be some seriously damning evidence on that videotape, as well as evidence that the Patriots football staff knew and approved of what was going on.

I think alot of guys who are throwing stones at the Pats better be carefully about the glass houses they're living in. I didn't realize that the other 31 teams in the league were so squeaky clean... I guess being successful puts a big target on your back. I can live with that.

I also wonder why other recently-successful teams like the Chargers, Steelers, Bears, Broncos etc. aren't complaining about the Pats stealing signals? It's just the Jets, Packers and Lions. Reeks of sour grapes to me.

That said, if they did do something illegal, they should pay the price, learn from it and move on. But for people to be saying they're ashamed and would be embarrassed if it were their team? Taking something a little too serious much?

This stuff is priceless.

 

[Shrek]

So basically, everyone on this thread has already decided that the Pats are guilty without seeing a single shred of evidence? Nice.

Worth repeating.Here are the only FACTS that we know:

1) Someone on the field had a videocamera confiscated.

2) That person was believed to have field credentials from the Patriots.

That's it. Everything else on this thread is speculation and charatcter assassination.

Hell, for all we know, it was someone affiliated with NFL Films who the Patriots' PR department hired to shoot some movies. That's about as likely as it being someone on the actual coaching staff. But everyone automatically assumes the worst, because hey, it's the Patriots, so it has to be something ditry and underhanded.

My prediction is that the Patriots will get fined $50,000 for violating an NFL rule, and that's it. For there to be any larger penalty, there needs to be some seriously damning evidence on that videotape, as well as evidence that the Patriots football staff knew and approved of what was going on.

LOFLSo now you make the rules and interpret them, huh?

To address the bolded parts of your post....

1) Everyone in this thread is NOT concluding that the Pats are guilty. Some people are actually discussing in hypothetical terms, as it should be. But I understand how saying "everyone" makes your arguments seem stronger to some people.

2) Everything else in this thread is NOT speculation or character assassination. Read through it and find out for yourself. Perhaps you read one or two posts that got your blood boiling, and decided to generalize, I don't know. But to say that this thread is simply a witch hunt makes you sound ignorant.

3) Everyone is NOT assuming the worst, but they are discussing the possibility. Or is it against the rules to discuss hypotheticals now?

4) You rail on others for jumping to conclusions, then you conclude that they will be fined $50K. You do realize that predicting a fine assumes that they are found guilty, right? Or is this like the Michael Vick fiasco, where the league is simply out to make an example of them, whether they are guilty or not?

5) The best was saved for last. Now you, and you alone, get to determine at what threshhold the Pats warrant "larger penalties"? You shouldn't be wasting your time in this thread. You need to be forwarding this on to Roger Goodell's office via Prority Mail. He'll need to know exactly how much evidence he needs to have before making any type of decision. Go! The future of morals and ethics in this league depend on your haste!

 

[phthalatemagic]

I think alot of guys who are throwing stones at the Pats better be carefully about the glass houses they're living in. I didn't realize that the other 31 teams in the league were so squeaky clean... I guess being successful puts a big target on your back. I can live with that.I also wonder why other recently-successful teams like the Chargers, Steelers, Bears, Broncos etc. aren't complaining about the Pats stealing signals? It's just the Jets, Packers and Lions. Reeks of sour grapes to me.

I think that's a lazy statement and it sounds just like when people (not necessarily you) claim "other people have done HGH, so Rodney Harrison isn't that bad"When other teams get caught, I'm sure it will be addressed all over again. I don't think this thread is for deflection of what the Patriots allegedly did.

 

[Folded Undercard]

Love the damage control/excuses by Pat fans in this thread. Seriously, they probably would have won anyway. But are some of you really such blind homers that you can't acknowledge that:

A) They may have gained an unfair advantage by doing something that the NFL has previously warned teams NOT to do, as it is cheating in their eyes, and

B) Your beloved organization isn't the bunch of choirboys they make themselves out to be?

There has been a lot of evidence that this may be true, including previous incidents. If I was a Pats fan, I would be disappointed in my team if they felt that they had to do this to win. No matter how people try to defend this behavior, it boils down to this. Any team that would do this is obviously uncomfortable with their chances of winning using strictly conventional methods.

I love these kind of posts. Why shouldn't someone defend their team? That's why they are called fans. I suppose you are totally unbiased with regard to your team. Blind homerism is better than blind hate. So get off your pedastal, and get real. Every NFL team tries to get EVERY advantage they can.I recall more than a few instances where these type of things have happened before with other teams (including the Jets). How about speculation before the game that the Jets brought Caldwell or some other NE players in, so they could learn the Defensive plays of the Pats?

Guys who are making this out to be some kind of major crime are the one who need to take the glasses off. The media is guilty of making the Pats out to be choir boys, not NE fans or players. Real NE fans know that BB and the organization are warriors and not choir boys. Its a violent sport with ALOT at stake....NE fans and players realize that. Give NE a slap on the wrist and move on....

Please stop. You sound like a fool.This is a typical response of a child who gets caught doing something wrong.

Step 1- Denial.

Step 2- Try to shift blame. "It's someone else's fault." Or "Well everyone else is doing it too."

Step 3- Bring up someone else's alleged misdeeds to divert attention.

Incidentally, if the Jets did try to bring Caldwell in to "debrief" him, I wouldn't agree with that either if it was against the rules. By the way, has the league's front office made a point of sending out warnings to teams that the practice of bringing in players that have been cut from other teams is against the rules? Have they warned that this type of action is punishable? Are you trying to compare apples to oranges in an attempt to shift the attention away from where it currently is?

I've never once said in this thread that I think the Patriots are guilty. I can wait until the league investigation makes that claim. What I'm marveling at is the fact that at this phase of the game, Pats fans are squirming like greased eels, trying to justify this type of behavior or defend it. I actually hope the league finds out that the Pats didn't do this. Why? Because then it will be fun to watch the same people who defended this type of behavior in this thread come out and pound their chests about how they didn't need it in the first place.

Yet another great and intellegent post. You resort to stereotyping and name calling, and I'm the child. Where did I shift blame or deny anything? You attack NE fans for defending their team. Then you go on to state that NE fans think their players are choir boys. I was merely rebutting those facts. I brought up the Caldwell incident, not to be a deflection or denial, but a mere case in point that many things go on in the NFL that would be considered boderline or unethical. Do a little research and you will find a ton of simliar incidents have gone on many times before with ALL teams. In fact, behavior like this used to be common place and an everyday occurence. To think that ALL teams are not guilty of simliar tactics is truly foolish.Did I ever say it was OK? NO. In fact, I stated that we should penalize them and move on. To paint an entire fan base with broad sterotypical statements and to try and diminish the great accomplishments of an historic franchise is the true crime....and it happens every day on these boards, by haters just like you.