Would you want your team to cheat like the Pats (1 Viewer)

[AnonymousBob]

Think about things for a moment-if you could guarantee your team could repeat the success of the Patriots from the past several seasons (3 championships), but it meant your team would deal with the fallout they're currently going through, would you take the rings?

 

[AnonymousBob]

The people saying they'd take the rings/scandal - are you guys New England fans?

 

[Bossman]

Think about things for a moment-if you could guarantee your team could repeat the success of the Patriots from the past several seasons (3 championships), but it meant your team would deal with the fallout they're currently going through, would you take the rings?

I think the reason the Patriots are having to deal with this (other than the fact that Belicheat is an ###).... is because they WON 3 championships.If the Cardinals were in the same situation... who would care?

 

[AnonymousBob]

Think about things for a moment-if you could guarantee your team could repeat the success of the Patriots from the past several seasons (3 championships), but it meant your team would deal with the fallout they're currently going through, would you take the rings?

I think the reason the Patriots are having to deal with this (other than the fact that Belicheat is an ###).... is because they WON 3 championships.If the Cardinals were in the same situation... who would care?

If the Cardinals suddenly won three Super Bowls, people would care if they had cheated their way to those wins.

 

[bostonfred]

There are Patriots fans who feel it was a huge deal, and non-fans who don't care. I'd say that as a fan, I'm not bothered by it as much as non-fans seem to be, and that's fine by me. I have three NFL Films DVDs in my collection that I wouldn't trade for much of anything. For a while I was more concerned - the rumors of them stealing signs midgame and using them in game, among other things, would have been more bothersome. As things stand, I think they received more punishment than they probably "should" have, and more than Belichick would reasonably have expected had this come to light under Tagliabue's watch. Goodell made an example of the Patriots, and it put an end to the practice. As a side effect, on the one hand, people who want to believe the Patriots are evil will be able to point to the fact that they're the only ones to get caught, and the severity of the punishment, and say that it was a big deal. And it's unlikely any other team will get caught for the same offense any time soon, so they'll be able to say that with impunity. On the other hand, Jimmy Johnson has admitted to doing it in the past, and other coaches have implied that it was fairly commonplace, and the NFL has said that the Patriots gained no in game advantage from taping. Their 16-0 regular season and Superbowl appearance can't be called into question, which sure seems to suggest that videotape was far from the only reason they did well. And the NFL's not putting any asterisks on anything, even if there are fans who want to. I'm happy.

 

[Filthy]

Think about things for a moment-if you could guarantee your team could repeat the success of the Patriots from the past several seasons (3 championships), but it meant your team would deal with the fallout they're currently going through, would you take the rings?

I think the reason the Patriots are having to deal with this (other than the fact that Belicheat is an ###).... is because they WON 3 championships.If the Cardinals were in the same situation... who would care?

If the Cardinals suddenly won three Super Bowls, people would care if they had cheated their way to those wins.

Yeah, Belichick didn't strike anyone as a great coach until he started winning championships. Now we find out just how he did it, so is anyone really regarding him as a genius anymore?In answer to the question, no. Integrity of your reputation and the game must be of greater importance than winning. To use a golf analogy, say you shoot your lowest round ever while taking a couple mulligans and use the old foot-wedge to get out of the woods. Your score even breaks the golf course record so you get some notoriety with it too. Each and everytime someone pats you on the back congratulating you, you think back to that extra shot or two (mulligans) or that birdie you made only because you kicked your ball out of the woods. Kind of hard to look yourself in the mirror and say 'I'm a champion' without a sense of revulsion.

 

[bostonfred]

Think about things for a moment-if you could guarantee your team could repeat the success of the Patriots from the past several seasons (3 championships), but it meant your team would deal with the fallout they're currently going through, would you take the rings?

I think the reason the Patriots are having to deal with this (other than the fact that Belicheat is an ###).... is because they WON 3 championships.If the Cardinals were in the same situation... who would care?

If the Cardinals suddenly won three Super Bowls, people would care if they had cheated their way to those wins.

Yeah, Belichick didn't strike anyone as a great coach until he started winning championships. Now we find out just how he did it, so is anyone really regarding him as a genius anymore?In answer to the question, no. Integrity of your reputation and the game must be of greater importance than winning. To use a golf analogy, say you shoot your lowest round ever while taking a couple mulligans and use the old foot-wedge to get out of the woods. Your score even breaks the golf course record so you get some notoriety with it too. Each and everytime someone pats you on the back congratulating you, you think back to that extra shot or two (mulligans) or that birdie you made only because you kicked your ball out of the woods. Kind of hard to look yourself in the mirror and say 'I'm a champion' without a sense of revulsion.

If that were a reasonable comparison, I'd be much more bothered by it. This is more like getting advice on which club to use from another player while on the greens - which is a real, but minor rule. And it's one that is often overlooked even though it causes a slight advantage for someone who doesn't know which club to pick, even though it's perfectly legal to get the advice from someone else, just not another player. People who imagine that the Patriots did anything more than that really haven't dug deep into what they actually got in trouble for.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Think about things for a moment-if you could guarantee your team could repeat the success of the Patriots from the past several seasons (3 championships), but it meant your team would deal with the fallout they're currently going through, would you take the rings?

I think the reason the Patriots are having to deal with this (other than the fact that Belicheat is an ###).... is because they WON 3 championships.If the Cardinals were in the same situation... who would care?

If the Cardinals suddenly won three Super Bowls, people would care if they had cheated their way to those wins.

Yeah, Belichick didn't strike anyone as a great coach until he started winning championships. Now we find out just how he did it, so is anyone really regarding him as a genius anymore?In answer to the question, no. Integrity of your reputation and the game must be of greater importance than winning. To use a golf analogy, say you shoot your lowest round ever while taking a couple mulligans and use the old foot-wedge to get out of the woods. Your score even breaks the golf course record so you get some notoriety with it too. Each and everytime someone pats you on the back congratulating you, you think back to that extra shot or two (mulligans) or that birdie you made only because you kicked your ball out of the woods. Kind of hard to look yourself in the mirror and say 'I'm a champion' without a sense of revulsion.

Jim Haslett called; he's got some roids for the Steelers Oline.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Think about things for a moment-if you could guarantee your team could repeat the success of the Patriots from the past several seasons (3 championships), but it meant your team would deal with the fallout they're currently going through, would you take the rings?

I think the reason the Patriots are having to deal with this (other than the fact that Belicheat is an ###).... is because they WON 3 championships.If the Cardinals were in the same situation... who would care?

If the Cardinals suddenly won three Super Bowls, people would care if they had cheated their way to those wins.

Yeah, Belichick didn't strike anyone as a great coach until he started winning championships. Now we find out just how he did it, so is anyone really regarding him as a genius anymore?In answer to the question, no. Integrity of your reputation and the game must be of greater importance than winning. To use a golf analogy, say you shoot your lowest round ever while taking a couple mulligans and use the old foot-wedge to get out of the woods. Your score even breaks the golf course record so you get some notoriety with it too. Each and everytime someone pats you on the back congratulating you, you think back to that extra shot or two (mulligans) or that birdie you made only because you kicked your ball out of the woods. Kind of hard to look yourself in the mirror and say 'I'm a champion' without a sense of revulsion.

When people remember the Patriots dynasty 20-30 years from now, what will be remembered? Will your kids fully understand the cheating or will they simply recall New England having a fantastic dynasty?Years from now, the cheating won't be remembered so clearly-but everyone will still remember the rings.

 

[GregR_2]

...and the NFL has said that the Patriots gained no in game advantage from taping.

The NFL said they didn't get an advantage in the Jets game from the tape being made of the Jets game.I know you're too smart to suggest they never got any in game advantages from the 7 years of video taping.

 

[Despyzer]

It seems difficult for me to believe that they gained such an advantage from videotaping that it is the sole (or even primary cause) cause of winning three championships. I'm also not convinced that they are the only team that has ever regularly engaged in this practice.

Do I want my team engaging in illegal practices, regardless of the reasons for doing so? No.

Do I think that these types of things occur on a fairly regular basis? Yes. (And that perception is largely the reason that the NFL had to punish with impunity)

Do I think this Patriots spygate thing is way overblown? Yes.

Do I think it is overblown due to jealousy and sour grapes? Yes.

Am I myself a Patriots fan? No.

Am I likely to use the "cheating" card when dealing with a particularly venomous or annoying Patriots fan? Probably.

 

[hacman]

...and the NFL has said that the Patriots gained no in game advantage from taping.

The NFL said they didn't get an advantage in the Jets game from the tape being made of the Jets game.I know you're too smart to suggest they never got any in game advantages from the 7 years of video taping.

Not to mention the fact that if they were not gaining an in-game advantage by year 7, they would have stopped after year 1.

 

[EBF]

My hunch is that most of the teams in the league have been doing this sort of stuff. Jon Gruden has used a sheet of plastic to cover his lips when he talks into his headset for as long as I can remember.

IMO, it's just not a big deal.

 

[bostonfred]

...and the NFL has said that the Patriots gained no in game advantage from taping.

The NFL said they didn't get an advantage in the Jets game from the tape being made of the Jets game.I know you're too smart to suggest they never got any in game advantages from the 7 years of video taping.

Re: Did they gain any in game advantage from the 7 years of videotaping: The NFL said that they didn't gain an in game advantage in the Jets game. The NFL did not say that they gained an in game advantage in any other game. Belichick said that he believed it was OK as long as they didn't use the film for in game advantage. The commissioner specifically punished them for the details of how the film was taken. Re: Did they gain any pregame advantage from the seven years of videotaping: Of course. The question, of course, is how much of an advantage they gained relative to other teams in the league. Did they gain an advantage by watching film? Sure, but other teams could have filmed signals, too. Did they gain an advantage that couldn't have been obtained legally? No. So no, I don't think they got any in game advantage from the 7 years of videotaping.

 

[Kruppe]

I need clarification on something.

Was the videotaping of signals common practice around the NFL or not?

The NFL is saying is was.

Current and former coaches are saying it was.

Coaches covering their mouths on the sidelines says it was.

SO everybody’s doing it? Everybody knows everybody is doing it too?

 

[Chunky Soup]

Their "cheating" was extremely insignificant. If the Eagles won those SBs I'd be ecstatic even if they were caught with what the Pats have done.

 

[Hawkeyeskin]

Think about things for a moment-if you could guarantee your team could repeat the success of the Patriots from the past several seasons (3 championships), but it meant your team would deal with the fallout they're currently going through, would you take the rings?

I think the reason the Patriots are having to deal with this (other than the fact that Belicheat is an ###).... is because they WON 3 championships.If the Cardinals were in the same situation... who would care?

Before the Patriots started winning championships, nobody cared about them either.

 

[bostonfred]

Think about things for a moment-if you could guarantee your team could repeat the success of the Patriots from the past several seasons (3 championships), but it meant your team would deal with the fallout they're currently going through, would you take the rings?

I think the reason the Patriots are having to deal with this (other than the fact that Belicheat is an ###).... is because they WON 3 championships.If the Cardinals were in the same situation... who would care?

Before the Patriots started winning championships, nobody cared about them either.

And since they went 5-11 when they were supposedly cheating, it couldn't have made that big a difference.

 

[brednbuddah]

I am no fan of the Pats. period. as a matter of fact I detest them. (Jets fan, enough said).

that said, can taping an opponent's game plays give you an unfair advantage? I don't think so. you still have to come up with a defensive strategy and 11 guys have to execute as 1 in order to defend against it.

Moreover, how many times have you seen players on the side lines flipping through pages of in game offensive/defensive formations to get a hint as to what the play was run and to be prepared for it if they see the same formation later in the game.

taping coodinators giving signals is without question unethical and shouldn't be tolerated. BB/Pats were penalized for it. If new evidence reveals they've done the same in the past, the case needs to be investigated and taken from there.

However, I don't see the harm in taping opponents in game plays. pop warner football, HS, college, etc... all tape upcoming opponents games the week before to discect and come up with a game plan during the week. Even with all that info and preparation, you still need to execute on the field.

 

[heidbrink]

The Pats superbowl wins have all been close games (3 points). If there was any cheating (as has been alleged in the st louis post dispatch for example... http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/st...59?OpenDocument ) it certainly could have been pivotal. At this point, the entire dyn*sty has been brought into question. I am not a Pat fan nor hater. It is just really unfortunate for the Pat faithful. Who would want that legacy? I wouldn't.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Absolutely not. I hate cheaters.

 

[Spike]

...and the NFL has said that the Patriots gained no in game advantage from taping.

The NFL said they didn't get an advantage in the Jets game from the tape being made of the Jets game.I know you're too smart to suggest they never got any in game advantages from the 7 years of video taping.

Maybe people can help me with this, but it was just this year that the "clarification" (or whatever it's called) was sent out by the league offices. Right?The Patriots (at the very least) continued to tape. Right?

So they cheated. Indisputable.

Prior to this season, do we know they were the only ones to do so? Isn't it possible that other teams prior to this season - teams that won championships - did the same?

 

[AB in DC]

How can anyone answer this without knowing where this will end?

If it turns out that the Pats are cleared of any significant allegations prior to 2006, then most everyone would prefer the championships.

If it turns out that Belichick had videotape of the Rams walk-through before SB36 and there's confirmation that information obtained against the rules was used to help them win, then most everyone would say no.

 

[SteelerMurf]

How can anyone answer this without knowing where this will end?If it turns out that the Pats are cleared of any significant allegations prior to 2006, then most everyone would prefer the championships.If it turns out that Belichick had videotape of the Rams walk-through before SB36 and there's confirmation that information obtained against the rules was used to help them win, then most everyone would say no.

well considering they did spygate for 2004 AFC champ game...and they are now on record as having taped since 2000.....it can only end worse tahan it already is when Walsh starts talking and showing tapes

 

[ninerfanatic492000]

Jimmy Johnson right on the Fox set said this has been going on since he's been coaching. If Jimmy(being a former coach) don't care, I don't care

 

[((Morpheus))]

I need clarification on something. Was the videotaping of signals common practice around the NFL or not? The NFL is saying is was. Current and former coaches are saying it was.Coaches covering their mouths on the sidelines says it was.SO everybody’s doing it? Everybody knows everybody is doing it too?

Videotaping signals is legal. Videotaping signals from the sidelines is illegal.

 

[GregR_2]

...and the NFL has said that the Patriots gained no in game advantage from taping.

The NFL said they didn't get an advantage in the Jets game from the tape being made of the Jets game.I know you're too smart to suggest they never got any in game advantages from the 7 years of video taping.

Re: Did they gain any in game advantage from the 7 years of videotaping: The NFL said that they didn't gain an in game advantage in the Jets game.

The NFL said that they didn't gain an in game advantage in the Jets game, from the video tape taken in the same game. The NFL did not address if they had an in game advantage in the Jets game, or any other game, because of any illegal videotapes taken previous to the game(s) in question.

The NFL did not say that they gained an in game advantage in any other game.

The NFL pointedly avoided any mention of what in game advantages they did or didn't get from PREVIOUSLY recorded, illegal tapes. Choosing to not address the topic is not the same thing as saying they didn't gain an advantage. If I was Goodell I'd have avoided it too, because it would have just made the media circus worse. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out tapes meant specifically to steal team's signals would be used for an in game advantage the next time the teams played, whether or not the NFL came out and gave a statement confirming it that would be quoted in every article written on the topic.

Belichick said that he believed it was OK as long as they didn't use the film for in game advantage. The commissioner specifically punished them for the details of how the film was taken.

No, he didn't. Belichick said, quoted in an ESPN article (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3018338): "We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress."You are creating wording he never used that implies the tapes were never used for any in game advantage. He said very distinctly the tapes were not used for an advantage while that game was in progress.

Re: Did they gain any pregame advantage from the seven years of videotaping: Of course. The question, of course, is how much of an advantage they gained relative to other teams in the league. Did they gain an advantage by watching film? Sure, but other teams could have filmed signals, too. Did they gain an advantage that couldn't have been obtained legally? No.

So no, I don't think they got any in game advantage from the 7 years of videotaping.

Knowing what specific signal from the coaches to the players on the fields means a blitz and what signal means zone coverage, is a PREGAME advantage?

 

[GregR_2]

...and the NFL has said that the Patriots gained no in game advantage from taping.

The NFL said they didn't get an advantage in the Jets game from the tape being made of the Jets game.I know you're too smart to suggest they never got any in game advantages from the 7 years of video taping.

Maybe people can help me with this, but it was just this year that the "clarification" (or whatever it's called) was sent out by the league offices. Right?The Patriots (at the very least) continued to tape. Right?

So they cheated. Indisputable.

Prior to this season, do we know they were the only ones to do so? Isn't it possible that other teams prior to this season - teams that won championships - did the same?

I'm sure some teams illegally taped in the past. Some of them may have won championships in recent years, I don't know since I don't know who they are.The NFL drew their line in the sand and said stop doing it. The team who got caught doing it past that point got looked at with a fine tooth comb. If any other team also continues to do it and gets caught I believe they'll be looked at with an even finer comb, given how things are going with Specter for the way the NFL handed aspects of their investigation.

The NFL didn't draw the line in the sand because their goal was to have a Spanish Inquisition to go find every team who had video taped illegally. But when a team crosses that line and puts themself in the crosshairs, they are going to get looked at thoroughly.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

#### NO.

You can keep the cr@p thats is the Patriots in New England.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

If I were a player, its by any means necessary.

As a fan, I'm detached, I"m not on the team, I'm on the bandwagon of the experience.

And as a fan, a true fan, you ride your team through ups and downs, through those peaks and valleys. I was a proud Notre Dame fan this year when they were especially crap. It will their return to glory one day all the sweeter to know you slugged it out through the muck(I hope a return to glory). Using them as an example, its pretty apparent they didn't cheat to perform this poorly, so I wouldn't want it to turn on cheating.

But moreover, as a fan, I basically derive enjoyment on a few levels. One, the entertainment, pure entertainment of watching a team. This part of me would love to see a parade and trophy hoist, sure. But equal, if not greater elements of fandom to me, is in the inspiration of watching a team. The ups and downs of a team are a frequent mirror to the human experience. We all have good days and bad days, good months and bad months, good years and bad years. If you let bad days keep you down, you'd never get up. It is that fight that can be an inspiration.

I'm on the record as an avowed Yankee fan, but I'll tell you this true, as painful as the 2004 ALCS was(I've called Sports 9/11), I honestly took personal inspriation in the Sox story. Down 3-0, Mariano on the mound trailing in the 9th, 1918, the Curse, coming off a 19-8, 26 World Championships, Aaron Boone, Bucky Dent, Bill Buckner, the whole bit, and those boys stared down all that history and got off the mat. That loss was remarkably painful, but also remarkably inspiring, and I've called that loss a choke by the Yankees, but I truly feel thats selling those Sox short. I never wanted to see them win, but you know what, I can respect that and have thought of that in tough times. Crazy heresy I know, but its true.

Coupled with inspiration is the notion of bragging rights. You want to talk some S to your friends. That Giant run this year was all the sweeter because of the Cowboy win. That honestly felt like the Super Bowl winning that game because I roll with so many cowboy folks. Ditto the Yanks beating the Mets in baseball, Devils beating the Rangers in hockey. It doesn't mean much, but talking a little smack is fun.

Both of those experiences would be unavoidably hollow to me if my team cheated to get there. Believe me, as a Yankee fan, I was in awe of Clemens in Seattle in 2000. Probably the most dominating game I've ever seen pitched, and I've watched 7 no hitters live from the first pitch in my life. To know he did that with the aid of the juice, it makes me feel awful that those seattle players and fans got gyped of that experience. I take cold comfort in the fact that none of those series the yanks won were 7 gamers, and I'd like to think the roid effect was negliable, but that game in particular really sticks in my craw. I couldn't be proud of that game or brag about it, it feels forever tainted to me.

Cheating robs us as fans of those two great moments. Whats the point if its not on the level? I can see intellectually why you might like it, but I find it insane to think you'd dervive any true satisfaction about it as a fan.

 

[krsone21]

I voted that I would not want my team to cheat. Sure as a fan I want my team to win, but win by playing hard on the field and beating your opponent not by cheating. As a Raiders fan I would not want my team to win because of cheating. I would take no satisfaction in those rings or wins.

 

[BigTex]

It seems difficult for me to believe that they gained such an advantage from videotaping that it is the sole (or even primary cause) cause of winning three championships. I'm also not convinced that they are the only team that has ever regularly engaged in this practice.Do I want my team engaging in illegal practices, regardless of the reasons for doing so? No.Do I think that these types of things occur on a fairly regular basis? Yes. (And that perception is largely the reason that the NFL had to punish with impunity)Do I think this Patriots spygate thing is way overblown? Yes.Do I think it is overblown due to jealousy and sour grapes? Yes.Am I myself a Patriots fan? No.Am I likely to use the "cheating" card when dealing with a particularly venomous or annoying Patriots fan? Probably.

If it wasn't such an advantage then why video tape? It would be a lost cause no?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

It seems difficult for me to believe that they gained such an advantage from videotaping that it is the sole (or even primary cause) cause of winning three championships. I'm also not convinced that they are the only team that has ever regularly engaged in this practice.Do I want my team engaging in illegal practices, regardless of the reasons for doing so? No.Do I think that these types of things occur on a fairly regular basis? Yes. (And that perception is largely the reason that the NFL had to punish with impunity)Do I think this Patriots spygate thing is way overblown? Yes.Do I think it is overblown due to jealousy and sour grapes? Yes.Am I myself a Patriots fan? No.Am I likely to use the "cheating" card when dealing with a particularly venomous or annoying Patriots fan? Probably.

If it wasn't such an advantage then why video tape? It would be a lost cause no?

Exactly. It was a massive advantage.

 

[BigTex]

...and the NFL has said that the Patriots gained no in game advantage from taping.

The NFL said they didn't get an advantage in the Jets game from the tape being made of the Jets game.I know you're too smart to suggest they never got any in game advantages from the 7 years of video taping.

Re: Did they gain any in game advantage from the 7 years of videotaping: The NFL said that they didn't gain an in game advantage in the Jets game.

The NFL said that they didn't gain an in game advantage in the Jets game, from the video tape taken in the same game. The NFL did not address if they had an in game advantage in the Jets game, or any other game, because of any illegal videotapes taken previous to the game(s) in question.

The NFL did not say that they gained an in game advantage in any other game.

The NFL pointedly avoided any mention of what in game advantages they did or didn't get from PREVIOUSLY recorded, illegal tapes. Choosing to not address the topic is not the same thing as saying they didn't gain an advantage. If I was Goodell I'd have avoided it too, because it would have just made the media circus worse. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out tapes meant specifically to steal team's signals would be used for an in game advantage the next time the teams played, whether or not the NFL came out and gave a statement confirming it that would be quoted in every article written on the topic.

Belichick said that he believed it was OK as long as they didn't use the film for in game advantage. The commissioner specifically punished them for the details of how the film was taken.

No, he didn't. Belichick said, quoted in an ESPN article (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3018338): "We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress."You are creating wording he never used that implies the tapes were never used for any in game advantage. He said very distinctly the tapes were not used for an advantage while that game was in progress.

Re: Did they gain any pregame advantage from the seven years of videotaping: Of course. The question, of course, is how much of an advantage they gained relative to other teams in the league. Did they gain an advantage by watching film? Sure, but other teams could have filmed signals, too. Did they gain an advantage that couldn't have been obtained legally? No.

So no, I don't think they got any in game advantage from the 7 years of videotaping.

Knowing what specific signal from the coaches to the players on the fields means a blitz and what signal means zone coverage, is a PREGAME advantage?

 

[Godsbrother]

Jim Haslett called; he's got some roids for the Steelers Oline.

WTF does this have to do with the Patriots sitiation and how many Super Bowls did the Steelers win with Jim Haslett on the coaching staff?

 

[Godsbrother]

As things stand, I think they received more punishment than they probably "should" have, and more than Belichick would reasonably have expected had this come to light under Tagliabue's watch. Goodell made an example of the Patriots, and it put an end to the practice. As a side effect, on the one hand, people who want to believe the Patriots are evil will be able to point to the fact that they're the only ones to get caught, and the severity of the punishment, and say that it was a big deal. And it's unlikely any other team will get caught for the same offense any time soon, so they'll be able to say that with impunity. On the other hand, Jimmy Johnson has admitted to doing it in the past, and other coaches have implied that it was fairly commonplace, and the NFL has said that the Patriots gained no in game advantage from taping. Their 16-0 regular season and Superbowl appearance can't be called into question, which sure seems to suggest that videotape was far from the only reason they did well. And the NFL's not putting any asterisks on anything, even if there are fans who want to. I'm happy.

While I agree with what you saying here I don't think Bill Belichick was punished enough. Whether you think it was a big deal or not it is a rule, one that Belichick violated multiple times over many years and the result was a controversy the NFL did not need. At the very least he should have been suspended for 4 games.

 

[SuperJohn96]

If you ain't cheatin' ... you ain't tryin' ...

 

[AsimoV]

If you ain't cheatin' ... you ain't tryin' ...

At least you're original...

 

[BigSteelThrill]

If you ain't cheatin' ... you ain't tryin' ...

Bull f'n chit.If you ae cheatin' you never desrved to win anyway. And certainly never earned anything. Ill-gotten gains.

 

[bostonfred]

Knowing what specific signal from the coaches to the players on the fields means a blitz and what signal means zone coverage, is a PREGAME advantage?

Yes. I don't think I was clear enough in the terminology I'm using here. I'm referring to an "in game" advantage as one where they use the information they gather during the game in the same game. The commissioner was very specific that this did not happen. Belichick was very specific that he did not do this and that he thought that that was the intent of the rule. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Patriots gained an in game advantage in any game. When I refer to a "pre game" advantage, I'm talking about one that they use to prepare for the next game. So here's my post again:

Re: Did they gain any in game advantage from the 7 years of videotaping: The NFL said that they didn't gain an in game advantage in the Jets game. The NFL did not say that they gained an in game advantage in any other game. Belichick said that he believed it was OK as long as they didn't use the film for in game advantage. The commissioner specifically punished them for the details of how the film was taken.

Re: Did they gain any pregame advantage from the seven years of videotaping: Of course. The question, of course, is how much of an advantage they gained relative to other teams in the league. Did they gain an advantage by watching film? Sure, but other teams could have filmed signals, too. Did they gain an advantage that couldn't have been obtained legally? No.

So no, I don't think they got any in game advantage from the 7 years of videotaping.

I specifically said that they gained a "pre game" advantage, which you seem to agree with. The place where we are more likely to disagree is not whether it was in game or pre game, but whether they gained an advantage over other teams.

 

[patrickmcgroin]

I am NOT a Pats fan (their win over my Panthers in the Superbowl still hurts), but I respect how well run their organization seems to be. If the taping they have done was "unethical" but not illegal, its time to move on. If it was illegal thats a different story.

 

[bostonfred]

I am NOT a Pats fan (their win over my Panthers in the Superbowl still hurts), but I respect how well run their organization seems to be. If the taping they have done was "unethical" but not illegal, its time to move on. If it was illegal thats a different story.

What if it was ethical but illegal?

 

[patrickmcgroin]

I am NOT a Pats fan (their win over my Panthers in the Superbowl still hurts), but I respect how well run their organization seems to be. If the taping they have done was "unethical" but not illegal, its time to move on. If it was illegal thats a different story.

What if it was ethical but illegal?

If it was illegal, I guess we`ll hear about it for the next zillion years, congress will stay more involved somehow, and it will suck out loud for the NFL in general.

 

[bostonfred]

I am NOT a Pats fan (their win over my Panthers in the Superbowl still hurts), but I respect how well run their organization seems to be. If the taping they have done was "unethical" but not illegal, its time to move on. If it was illegal thats a different story.

What if it was ethical but illegal?

If it was illegal, I guess we`ll hear about it for the next zillion years, congress will stay more involved somehow, and it will suck out loud for the NFL in general.

Gotcha. I don't think anything they did was illegal according to U.S. law.

 

[Banger]

...and the NFL has said that the Patriots gained no in game advantage from taping.

The NFL said they didn't get an advantage in the Jets game from the tape being made of the Jets game.I know you're too smart to suggest they never got any in game advantages from the 7 years of video taping.

Re: Did they gain any in game advantage from the 7 years of videotaping: The NFL said that they didn't gain an in game advantage in the Jets game. The NFL did not say that they gained an in game advantage in any other game. Belichick said that he believed it was OK as long as they didn't use the film for in game advantage. The commissioner specifically punished them for the details of how the film was taken. Re: Did they gain any pregame advantage from the seven years of videotaping: Of course. The question, of course, is how much of an advantage they gained relative to other teams in the league. Did they gain an advantage by watching film? Sure, but other teams could have filmed signals, too. Did they gain an advantage that couldn't have been obtained legally? No. So no, I don't think they got any in game advantage from the 7 years of videotaping.

It's all semantics. Is gaining an in game advantage really relevant? So the week before they play the Steelers they send a guy in the stands to record the game. The next game is against the Pats and they use info from that tape. It's not an "in game" advantage but does that make any difference at all? Absolutely not. It may not be an "in game" advantage but it would be a "next game" advantage.

 

[bostonfred]

...and the NFL has said that the Patriots gained no in game advantage from taping.

The NFL said they didn't get an advantage in the Jets game from the tape being made of the Jets game.I know you're too smart to suggest they never got any in game advantages from the 7 years of video taping.

Re: Did they gain any in game advantage from the 7 years of videotaping: The NFL said that they didn't gain an in game advantage in the Jets game. The NFL did not say that they gained an in game advantage in any other game. Belichick said that he believed it was OK as long as they didn't use the film for in game advantage. The commissioner specifically punished them for the details of how the film was taken. Re: Did they gain any pregame advantage from the seven years of videotaping: Of course. The question, of course, is how much of an advantage they gained relative to other teams in the league. Did they gain an advantage by watching film? Sure, but other teams could have filmed signals, too. Did they gain an advantage that couldn't have been obtained legally? No. So no, I don't think they got any in game advantage from the 7 years of videotaping.

It's all semantics. Is gaining an in game advantage really relevant? So the week before they play the Steelers they send a guy in the stands to record the game. The next game is against the Pats and they use info from that tape. It's not an "in game" advantage but does that make any difference at all? Absolutely not. It may not be an "in game" advantage but it would be a "next game" advantage.

Yes, it's extremely relevant. The purpose of all the details in the rule the Patriots broke - the roof overhead and the walls and all the stuff that seemd like overkill when you first hear it - is to keep teams from gathering the data and then passing it to their own sideline about the opposing team's signals. In other words, to prevent them from gaining an in game advantage. On the other hand, it is legal to film any aspect of the game you want for use in practice the following week, including opposing teams' signals. In other words, any team could have gotten that "next game" advantage.

 

[Banger]

...and the NFL has said that the Patriots gained no in game advantage from taping.

The NFL said they didn't get an advantage in the Jets game from the tape being made of the Jets game.I know you're too smart to suggest they never got any in game advantages from the 7 years of video taping.

Re: Did they gain any in game advantage from the 7 years of videotaping: The NFL said that they didn't gain an in game advantage in the Jets game. The NFL did not say that they gained an in game advantage in any other game. Belichick said that he believed it was OK as long as they didn't use the film for in game advantage. The commissioner specifically punished them for the details of how the film was taken. Re: Did they gain any pregame advantage from the seven years of videotaping: Of course. The question, of course, is how much of an advantage they gained relative to other teams in the league. Did they gain an advantage by watching film? Sure, but other teams could have filmed signals, too. Did they gain an advantage that couldn't have been obtained legally? No. So no, I don't think they got any in game advantage from the 7 years of videotaping.

It's all semantics. Is gaining an in game advantage really relevant? So the week before they play the Steelers they send a guy in the stands to record the game. The next game is against the Pats and they use info from that tape. It's not an "in game" advantage but does that make any difference at all? Absolutely not. It may not be an "in game" advantage but it would be a "next game" advantage.

Yes, it's extremely relevant. The purpose of all the details in the rule the Patriots broke - the roof overhead and the walls and all the stuff that seemd like overkill when you first hear it - is to keep teams from gathering the data and then passing it to their own sideline about the opposing team's signals. In other words, to prevent them from gaining an in game advantage. On the other hand, it is legal to film any aspect of the game you want for use in practice the following week, including opposing teams' signals. In other words, any team could have gotten that "next game" advantage.

That makes no sense. So you're saying that teams can send employees to games and sit them in the stands and tape the defensive coord's hand signals for next weeks game and it's totally legal? If so, why aren't the stands packed with videographers in anticipation of next weeks game? I looked for the actual rule but couldn't find it. I recall that it said that you cannot tape the defensive coords signals and nothing about an "in game" advantage as you say.

 

[bostonfred]

...and the NFL has said that the Patriots gained no in game advantage from taping.

The NFL said they didn't get an advantage in the Jets game from the tape being made of the Jets game.I know you're too smart to suggest they never got any in game advantages from the 7 years of video taping.

Re: Did they gain any in game advantage from the 7 years of videotaping: The NFL said that they didn't gain an in game advantage in the Jets game. The NFL did not say that they gained an in game advantage in any other game. Belichick said that he believed it was OK as long as they didn't use the film for in game advantage. The commissioner specifically punished them for the details of how the film was taken. Re: Did they gain any pregame advantage from the seven years of videotaping: Of course. The question, of course, is how much of an advantage they gained relative to other teams in the league. Did they gain an advantage by watching film? Sure, but other teams could have filmed signals, too. Did they gain an advantage that couldn't have been obtained legally? No. So no, I don't think they got any in game advantage from the 7 years of videotaping.

It's all semantics. Is gaining an in game advantage really relevant? So the week before they play the Steelers they send a guy in the stands to record the game. The next game is against the Pats and they use info from that tape. It's not an "in game" advantage but does that make any difference at all? Absolutely not. It may not be an "in game" advantage but it would be a "next game" advantage.

Yes, it's extremely relevant. The purpose of all the details in the rule the Patriots broke - the roof overhead and the walls and all the stuff that seemd like overkill when you first hear it - is to keep teams from gathering the data and then passing it to their own sideline about the opposing team's signals. In other words, to prevent them from gaining an in game advantage. On the other hand, it is legal to film any aspect of the game you want for use in practice the following week, including opposing teams' signals. In other words, any team could have gotten that "next game" advantage.

That makes no sense. So you're saying that teams can send employees to games and sit them in the stands and tape the defensive coord's hand signals for next weeks game and it's totally legal? If so, why aren't the stands packed with videographers in anticipation of next weeks game? I looked for the actual rule but couldn't find it. I recall that it said that you cannot tape the defensive coords signals and nothing about an "in game" advantage as you say.

Because they don't need that many videographers? It's legal to tape. The only thing that wasn't legal about this was WHERE they taped from, and the only REASON it's illegal to tape from the sidelines is to prevent the in game advantage. There is no evidence that the Patriots gained an in game advantage. The NFL said that they did not gain in in game advantage in the game against the Jets, and has not said that they gained any in game advantage in any other game. Belichick explained that he misunderstood the rule and was following the intent, not the letter, of the law. It's pretty clear at this point - there is no reasaon to believe that an in game advantage was gained, and it is legal to gain any pre game advantage that the Patriots could have gained.

 

[Banger]

...and the NFL has said that the Patriots gained no in game advantage from taping.

The NFL said they didn't get an advantage in the Jets game from the tape being made of the Jets game.I know you're too smart to suggest they never got any in game advantages from the 7 years of video taping.

Re: Did they gain any in game advantage from the 7 years of videotaping: The NFL said that they didn't gain an in game advantage in the Jets game. The NFL did not say that they gained an in game advantage in any other game. Belichick said that he believed it was OK as long as they didn't use the film for in game advantage. The commissioner specifically punished them for the details of how the film was taken. Re: Did they gain any pregame advantage from the seven years of videotaping: Of course. The question, of course, is how much of an advantage they gained relative to other teams in the league. Did they gain an advantage by watching film? Sure, but other teams could have filmed signals, too. Did they gain an advantage that couldn't have been obtained legally? No. So no, I don't think they got any in game advantage from the 7 years of videotaping.

It's all semantics. Is gaining an in game advantage really relevant? So the week before they play the Steelers they send a guy in the stands to record the game. The next game is against the Pats and they use info from that tape. It's not an "in game" advantage but does that make any difference at all? Absolutely not. It may not be an "in game" advantage but it would be a "next game" advantage.

Yes, it's extremely relevant. The purpose of all the details in the rule the Patriots broke - the roof overhead and the walls and all the stuff that seemd like overkill when you first hear it - is to keep teams from gathering the data and then passing it to their own sideline about the opposing team's signals. In other words, to prevent them from gaining an in game advantage. On the other hand, it is legal to film any aspect of the game you want for use in practice the following week, including opposing teams' signals. In other words, any team could have gotten that "next game" advantage.

That makes no sense. So you're saying that teams can send employees to games and sit them in the stands and tape the defensive coord's hand signals for next weeks game and it's totally legal? If so, why aren't the stands packed with videographers in anticipation of next weeks game? I looked for the actual rule but couldn't find it. I recall that it said that you cannot tape the defensive coords signals and nothing about an "in game" advantage as you say.

Because they don't need that many videographers? It's legal to tape. The only thing that wasn't legal about this was WHERE they taped from, and the only REASON it's illegal to tape from the sidelines is to prevent the in game advantage. There is no evidence that the Patriots gained an in game advantage. The NFL said that they did not gain in in game advantage in the game against the Jets, and has not said that they gained any in game advantage in any other game. Belichick explained that he misunderstood the rule and was following the intent, not the letter, of the law. It's pretty clear at this point - there is no reasaon to believe that an in game advantage was gained, and it is legal to gain any pre game advantage that the Patriots could have gained.

So my question remains, if it's totally legal for teams to tape opposing teams coords why don't they send one to each game the week before they play to tape the signals? Apparently, this is why Belichick was taping in the 1st place since he supposedly couldn't/didn't gain an advantage so why wouldn't he just send his videotapers to opponents the week prior to playing them? They wouldn't be breaking the rules correct?ETA...Does anyone have the actual rule?

 

[Kruppe]

I need clarification on something. Was the videotaping of signals common practice around the NFL or not? The NFL is saying is was. Current and former coaches are saying it was.Coaches covering their mouths on the sidelines says it was.SO everybody’s doing it? Everybody knows everybody is doing it too?

Videotaping signals is legal. Videotaping signals from the sidelines is illegal.

OK I undestand that part. So the Pats were the only team that videotaped from the sidelines and no other teams? Or all the teams were doing it and the Pats were the ones that were outed for doing it after the league asked all the teams to stop doing it?