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

[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 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.

Part of the reason for only allowing taping from one location is so that teams know exactly where the cameras are and can send in their signals to the defense from a location where that view will be obstructed so they cannot be taped. Once you let a team put cameras wherever they want, now they can get whatever angle they want and teams cannot do anything to keep their signals from being taped.

I'm still not sure what the point of your in game thing was. They recorded tapes that were illegal and used them for in game advantages in later games. They claimed that they thought using them after the game in question was legal. Goodell said he didn't believe them, and it wasn't legal. The issue isn't whether they specifically only used them for an in game advantage during the game they were being taped. Goodell already rejected that notion which Belichick tried to use as his excuse.

The issue is that they were taping illegally and using those tapes for in game advantages. It doesn't matter if the advantage was in the game they recorded or in a later game, it was still an illegally gained advantage.

 

[bostonfred]

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?

That's called scouting, and people do it. I don't know if they specifically tape signals, but I wouldn't be surprised at all.

 

[GregR_2]

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.

If you ever feel like complaining about how Pats fans are viewed in this forum, come back to this post to see a prime example of why.If you'll excuse me now, I have to go down to the courthouse and bail out Matt Schaub. FBI finally came to arrest him for that illegal forward pass he threw in game 6.

 

[bostonfred]

Part of the reason for only allowing taping from one location is so that teams know exactly where the cameras are and can send in their signals to the defense from a location where that view will be obstructed so they cannot be taped. Once you let a team put cameras wherever they want, now they can get whatever angle they want and teams cannot do anything to keep their signals from being taped.

I don't think coordinators are trying to hide the signals they send to the defense. The camera angle really doesn't matter, it's just not realistic logistically to hide signals in the heat of battle. If they were trying to physically hide their signals so only their defense could see them, that would be different.

I'm still not sure what the point of your in game thing was. They recorded tapes that were illegal and used them for in game advantages in later games. They claimed that they thought using them after the game in question was legal. Goodell said he didn't believe them, and it wasn't legal. The issue isn't whether they specifically only used them for an in game advantage during the game they were being taped. Goodell already rejected that notion which Belichick tried to use as his excuse.The issue is that they were taping illegally and using those tapes for in game advantages. It doesn't matter if the advantage was in the game they recorded or in a later game, it was still an illegally gained advantage.

If they were gaining an advantage for THIS game, then they'd be gaining an advantage that couldn't be accomplished legally. If they were taping for use in the NEXT game, then they'd be gaining an advantage that COULD be accomplished legally. That's why it's such a critical distinction.The reason Goodell punished them wasn't because they were using the tapes for advantage in later games. It was because they had obtained the tape illegally. If they had been taping legally, it would not have been against the rules. It is legal to tape and it is legal to use that tape between games.

 

[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.

If you ever feel like complaining about how Pats fans are viewed in this forum, come back to this post to see a prime example of why.If you'll excuse me now, I have to go down to the courthouse and bail out Matt Schaub. FBI finally came to arrest him for that illegal forward pass he threw in game 6.

I was answering HIS question, not yours. I'm not concerned with the distinction between "illegal according to NFL rules" and "illegal according to US law". In his second post, he made it clear that he was. My response was not to downplay the event, it was to end that line of conversation, because I don't think it's relevant.

 

[Banger]

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?

That's called scouting, and people do it. I don't know if they specifically tape signals, but I wouldn't be surprised at all.

that's the issue.

 

[massraider]

Are you kidding?

At this point, I am ready to sell a kidney in order to bribe some refs.

 

[Capella]

Of course. I hope my team is cheating now. Why wouldn't you?

 

[renesauz]

...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.

Part of the reason for only allowing taping from one location is so that teams know exactly where the cameras are and can send in their signals to the defense from a location where that view will be obstructed so they cannot be taped. Once you let a team put cameras wherever they want, now they can get whatever angle they want and teams cannot do anything to keep their signals from being taped.

I'm still not sure what the point of your in game thing was. They recorded tapes that were illegal and used them for in game advantages in later games. They claimed that they thought using them after the game in question was legal. Goodell said he didn't believe them, and it wasn't legal. The issue isn't whether they specifically only used them for an in game advantage during the game they were being taped. Goodell already rejected that notion which Belichick tried to use as his excuse.

The issue is that they were taping illegally and using those tapes for in game advantages. It doesn't matter if the advantage was in the game they recorded or in a later game, it was still an illegally gained advantage.

Somebody finally gets it! It isn't possible to prevent the other team from SEEING your signals...but seeing is not the same as taping. We can fight forever over whether or not the Pats gained any significant advantage with their illegal taping, but it is very clear that the taping was illegal. It's also very clear that these sorts of tactics were fairly commonplace before this season, so what happened in past years is irrelevant.Now a question: I realize that football signals would be necesarily more complex then baseball signals, and therefore more difficult to change (due simply to the need of the players to understand them). BUT...does it really make sense for tapes made by the Pats in PREVIOUS SEASONS to help them in this past season? I mean, if they did, wouldn't that make the DC being picked off an absolute idiot for using the same signals?

The point is...what the Pats did was illegal, and properly punished, but to call into question thier entire dynasty over it is foolish and bitter. I hate the Pats, and was glad to see them lose, but this is ridiculous.

 

[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.

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

If you ever feel like complaining about how Pats fans are viewed in this forum, come back to this post to see a prime example of why.If you'll excuse me now, I have to go down to the courthouse and bail out Matt Schaub. FBI finally came to arrest him for that illegal forward pass he threw in game 6.

I was answering HIS question, not yours. I'm not concerned with the distinction between "illegal according to NFL rules" and "illegal according to US law". In his second post, he made it clear that he was. My response was not to downplay the event, it was to end that line of conversation, because I don't think it's relevant.

No I meant illegal to NFL rules, I didn't think there was any US laws on such a thing.

 

[Bill Young]

Doesn't anybody remember when LT spoke the truth?

From the Boston Herald,

“I think the Patriots actually live by the saying, ‘If you’re not cheatin, you’re not trying,’” Tomlinson told reporters with a hearty laugh in San Diego (fast forward video nearly to the end). “I mean, I think that’s the way … they live off that statement. You keep hearing the different stories of people complaining about stuff that they do. So I’m not surprised.”

Spygate lives!!!

No, I don't want my favorite team to cheat to win. Just win. Go Steelers!!!

 

[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.

If you ever feel like complaining about how Pats fans are viewed in this forum, come back to this post to see a prime example of why.If you'll excuse me now, I have to go down to the courthouse and bail out Matt Schaub. FBI finally came to arrest him for that illegal forward pass he threw in game 6.

I was answering HIS question, not yours. I'm not concerned with the distinction between "illegal according to NFL rules" and "illegal according to US law". In his second post, he made it clear that he was. My response was not to downplay the event, it was to end that line of conversation, because I don't think it's relevant.

No I meant illegal to NFL rules, I didn't think there was any US laws on such a thing.

I misunderstood you then. Hence my response. I believe that the "Spygate" controversy was ethical but legal. By ethical, I mean that I don't believe Belichick did anything that was against the spirit of the rule, but I believe he got in trouble for breaking the letter of the rule.

 

[Kit Fisto]

The point is...what the Pats did was illegal, and properly punished, but to call into question thier entire dynasty over it is foolish and bitter. I hate the Pats, and was glad to see them lose, but this is ridiculous.

This guy gets it.Hates the Patriots, but still gets it. Thank you for bringing a little reality to this board.

 

[switz]

With the scandal the rings are IMO meaningless. So why have them?

 

[fred_1_15301]

The point is...what the Pats did was illegal, and properly punished, but to call into question thier entire dynasty over it is foolish and bitter. I hate the Pats, and was glad to see them lose, but this is ridiculous.

This guy gets it.Hates the Patriots, but still gets it. Thank you for bringing a little reality to this board.

You're obviously a little biased but if you can't at least understand the other point of view, you also don't have a sense of reality.

 

[fred_1_15301]

With the scandal the rings are IMO meaningless. So why have them?

What should they do with the rings? Who do you think should get them? I hope you don't say the Rams, Panthers and Eagles.......

 

[switz]

With the scandal the rings are IMO meaningless. So why have them?

What should they do with the rings? Who do you think should get them? I hope you don't say the Rams, Panthers and Eagles.......

No, I actually think those games should be wiped off the record, as the results cannot be validated, due to unfair competitive practices on the part of the higher scoring participant. I don't think the other teams participating should be awarded the rings either, as they didn't win either. I just think the league should swallow the pill and say the results of those games are invalid, and that there was no SB winner those years.

 

[bostonfred]

With the scandal the rings are IMO meaningless. So why have them?

What should they do with the rings? Who do you think should get them? I hope you don't say the Rams, Panthers and Eagles.......

No, I actually think those games should be wiped off the record, as the results cannot be validated, due to unfair competitive practices on the part of the higher scoring participant. I don't think the other teams participating should be awarded the rings either, as they didn't win either. I just think the league should swallow the pill and say the results of those games are invalid, and that there was no SB winner those years.

 

[switz]

With the scandal the rings are IMO meaningless. So why have them?

What should they do with the rings? Who do you think should get them? I hope you don't say the Rams, Panthers and Eagles.......

No, I actually think those games should be wiped off the record, as the results cannot be validated, due to unfair competitive practices on the part of the higher scoring participant. I don't think the other teams participating should be awarded the rings either, as they didn't win either. I just think the league should swallow the pill and say the results of those games are invalid, and that there was no SB winner those years.

Glad you had something to add... So are you arguing that the Patriots won those games fairly? Because they've already admitted to cheating, I think it's hard to claim those games were won fairly. I'm not saying their opponents should get credit for the win. I just don't think the Pats should.

 

[5Rings]

I don't get all the Patriot hate lately.

Its not like this is the first time a team has "cheated" to win a SB. Remember Denver cheating the salary cap? Dallas?

You can try and take the High Moral Highway, but you'll be travelling alone.

 

[bostonfred]

With the scandal the rings are IMO meaningless. So why have them?

What should they do with the rings? Who do you think should get them? I hope you don't say the Rams, Panthers and Eagles.......

No, I actually think those games should be wiped off the record, as the results cannot be validated, due to unfair competitive practices on the part of the higher scoring participant. I don't think the other teams participating should be awarded the rings either, as they didn't win either. I just think the league should swallow the pill and say the results of those games are invalid, and that there was no SB winner those years.

Glad you had something to add... So are you arguing that the Patriots won those games fairly? Because they've already admitted to cheating, I think it's hard to claim those games were won fairly. I'm not saying their opponents should get credit for the win. I just don't think the Pats should.

There's two pages of me adding something. I'm not going to drop everything for you just because you came in here and peed on the rug. Go back to the other thread, there's more fish there for you to catch.

 

[Thumper]

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?

Hey Pollyanna,Get a life. Every team from high school (I know my team tried it) to the NFL tries to steal signals. The only difference here is the Patriots were arrogant about it and got caught.Besides, does anyone really think that stealing signals made a difference one way or the other?To answer you question I would absolutely want my team to attempt to steal sings if it meant winning the Superbowl.

 

[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.

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

I didn't say that it was no advantage. I'm sure it is. I just think that some people are simplifying things by saying that if you cheat, you can have the same kind of success as the Patriots.

 

[Despyzer]

Exactly. It was a massive advantage.

What do you base this on? Just the fact that they did it? Couldn't the opposite claim be made that if it did offer such a competitive advantage that everyone would be doing it?

 

[Spartans Rule]

I say no. I wouldn't want my team to cheat like the Pats. I would want them to cheat worse than the Pats could've ever possibly dreamed of.

I want the Lions to win by any means necessary. That includes videotaping signals, stealing playbooks, bribing officials, circumventing the salary cap, hiring mobsters to injure opposing quarterbacks, and if all else fails, acquiring good players.

This is a game. It's for entertainment purposes only. What entertains me the most is the Lions winning. I don't have any real connection to the Lions, I just happen to root for them because I was born in Michigan. If they cheat, that doesn't make me a bad person for cheering for them. Nor does it make me a better person if they play fair, stay out of jail and donate more time to the United Way. They're just some team I'd like to see win games.

All of this is an exercise in sour grapes. If a team that was more well-liked, like say the Broncos of the late 90's, was to do something illegal, like, oh I dunno, circumvent the salary cap, would there be the same level of outrage? I think we know the answer to that.

 

[Filthy]

Follow up question to the original question:

Will the Superbowl trophies you hypothetically win be engraved with a big, fat *?

 

[AB in DC]

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?

Who says they don't?

 

[bryan215]

Follow up question to the original question:

Will the Superbowl trophies you hypothetically win be engraved with a big, fat *?

Its not a massive advantage...most teams change their signals regularly. Also a talented team wouldn't go 9-7 if it was such a huge advantage. You can tape defensive signals from the allowed places on the field...except most coaches try and block the signals for the most part. BB basically said well there are some vague terms in the rule and you already let us tape from the endzones so I'm gonna tape from the sideline too, he was basically angle shooting. Obv this became somewhat common among random teams because Godell finally decided to crack down on it per his reminding all the teams that it was not allowed. BB decides to keep doing it anyways and the Jets bust him for it. So Goddell lays down the hammer.

The fact that some of the defensive cordinators were seen waving at the camera man in the tapes makes it obv that teams knew they were doing it and didnt give a ####---which one assumes is because they change their signals

 

[pizzatyme]

With the scandal the rings are IMO meaningless. So why have them?

What should they do with the rings? Who do you think should get them? I hope you don't say the Rams, Panthers and Eagles.......

Why not send them to Zimbabwe or wherever the 19*-0 Super Bowl Champion t-shirts were sent? Image the joy of some villager...

 

[GregR_2]

With the scandal the rings are IMO meaningless. So why have them?

What should they do with the rings? Who do you think should get them? I hope you don't say the Rams, Panthers and Eagles.......

Why not send them to Zimbabwe or wherever the 19*-0 Super Bowl Champion t-shirts were sent? Image the joy of some villager...

They were sent to Nicaragua. Happy to help.

 

[pizzatyme]

With the scandal the rings are IMO meaningless. So why have them?

What should they do with the rings? Who do you think should get them? I hope you don't say the Rams, Panthers and Eagles.......

Why not send them to Zimbabwe or wherever the 19*-0 Super Bowl Champion t-shirts were sent? Image the joy of some villager...

They were sent to Nicaragua. Happy to help.

Thanks Greg! There's joy in Nicaragua today thanks to cough cough...the Patriots ahem...shortcomings in the big game.

 

[PMENFAN]

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.

That's probably the most sensible post I've read from anybody on the subject. Illegal practice engagement? No. But, I believe BB when he says he thought it was within the rules. As evidence of this, they gave a full mea culpa when asked. AND most importantly, it wasn't like the guy was hiding to tape. He was in plain sight on the sideline. People had to see the guy with the videotape over the last 7 years. If it was a hidden camera, I'd buy the argument that he was trying to hide something. Everything else you said, with the exception of playing the cheating card to enrage somebody, I'm on the same page.

 

[PMENFAN]

Exactly. It was a massive advantage.

What do you base this on? Just the fact that they did it? Couldn't the opposite claim be made that if it did offer such a competitive advantage that everyone would be doing it?

Or if it was such an advantage, how did thie team ever get stopped? They have top level talent in the league, yet somehow they've been three years without a SB. Granted they did make the SB once and the conf championship the other. They had predicted fallbacks when they lost both coordinators. That was huge. Check with the Chargers on what revamping your staff on both sides of the ball will do for ya. It's devestating. Yet, afte ra couple of years with the new coaches, they're right back there. regardless of knowing the signals, teams will still try to disguise their coverage, and may even change the play. What percentage of plays are signaled in anyway? I think they used it just like any other film. Break down tendencies.

 

[ImTheScientist]

I would much rather be ring free then be a cheat.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

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.

When people remember Mark McGuire's 70 homerun season, what will be remembered? No one's going to remember the steroids-but everyone will remember the record.

 

[Despyzer]

Exactly. It was a massive advantage.

What do you base this on? Just the fact that they did it? Couldn't the opposite claim be made that if it did offer such a competitive advantage that everyone would be doing it?

Or if it was such an advantage, how did thie team ever get stopped? They have top level talent in the league, yet somehow they've been three years without a SB. Granted they did make the SB once and the conf championship the other. They had predicted fallbacks when they lost both coordinators. That was huge. Check with the Chargers on what revamping your staff on both sides of the ball will do for ya.

Not the best example. The Chargers also lost both coordinators and a head coach and actually got further in the playoffs than they had the year before.

 

[PMENFAN]

Exactly. It was a massive advantage.

What do you base this on? Just the fact that they did it? Couldn't the opposite claim be made that if it did offer such a competitive advantage that everyone would be doing it?

Or if it was such an advantage, how did thie team ever get stopped? They have top level talent in the league, yet somehow they've been three years without a SB. Granted they did make the SB once and the conf championship the other. They had predicted fallbacks when they lost both coordinators. That was huge. Check with the Chargers on what revamping your staff on both sides of the ball will do for ya.

Not the best example. The Chargers also lost both coordinators and a head coach and actually got further in the playoffs than they had the year before.

Very true. I was speaking more in the 14-2 to 11-5 realm. They were good at the end of the year, and even though they beat Indy, I felt they were a better team the year prior, when the playoffs started. They got farther by facing the Colts first, and the Colts played a bad game. That said, next year, with the system in place, and really pretty much intact, they'll be the #2 team in the AFC, IMHO.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

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.

When people remember Mark McGuire's 70 homerun season, what will be remembered? No one's going to remember the steroids-but everyone will remember the record.

When it comes to the Pats people are gong to remember the cheating, no doubt about it.

 

[Das Boot]

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.

When people remember Mark McGuire's 70 homerun season, what will be remembered? No one's going to remember the steroids-but everyone will remember the record.

When it comes to the Pats people are gong to remember the cheating, no doubt about it.

I'm quite sure people will remember steroids every time they think of McGuire too. His testimony debacle and absence from the HOF will ensure that.

 

[GregR_2]

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.

That's probably the most sensible post I've read from anybody on the subject. Illegal practice engagement? No. But, I believe BB when he says he thought it was within the rules. As evidence of this, they gave a full mea culpa when asked. AND most importantly, it wasn't like the guy was hiding to tape. He was in plain sight on the sideline. People had to see the guy with the videotape over the last 7 years. If it was a hidden camera, I'd buy the argument that he was trying to hide something. Everything else you said, with the exception of playing the cheating card to enrage somebody, I'm on the same page.

It's pretty hard for me to believe Belichick's excuse when: 1) Goodell didn't even believe it. ("This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules"). 2) The Pats told the Jets they had to stop taping the end zone angles in the playoffs the year before. If the Pats honestly believed BB's claim as to how the rule worked, then they would not have believed they had grounds for telling the Jets to stop since the Jets weren't using the tape during the game. I agree Despyzer had a good post though.

 

[PMENFAN]

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.

That's probably the most sensible post I've read from anybody on the subject. Illegal practice engagement? No. But, I believe BB when he says he thought it was within the rules. As evidence of this, they gave a full mea culpa when asked. AND most importantly, it wasn't like the guy was hiding to tape. He was in plain sight on the sideline. People had to see the guy with the videotape over the last 7 years. If it was a hidden camera, I'd buy the argument that he was trying to hide something. Everything else you said, with the exception of playing the cheating card to enrage somebody, I'm on the same page.

It's pretty hard for me to believe Belichick's excuse when: 1) Goodell didn't even believe it. ("This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules"). 2) The Pats told the Jets they had to stop taping the end zone angles in the playoffs the year before. If the Pats honestly believed BB's claim as to how the rule worked, then they would not have believed they had grounds for telling the Jets to stop since the Jets weren't using the tape during the game. I agree Despyzer had a good post though.

You can choose to disvelieve BB. He certainly was wrong. My point is merely that his actions correlate directly with his stated belief that he thought it was within the rules. There was no attempt to hide what was happening. When asked, they willingly gave up everything they had. As for the Jets episode, I can't explain why they told the Jets to stop. Did it maybe stem from the Jets denying the same privelage? I don't know. But, at the end of the day, when you're trying to be a streaker, you cover up first. They didn't. That's why the stated belief that he thought it was within the rules rungs true with me. Now, if you said they were using hidden cameras to get these shots, I'd say you have a point. But, the camera and camera man were in the wide open, not hiding from anybody. And as coaches they're constantly scouring the sidelines, looking for clues. Anybody who saw the taper knew what was up. No question in my mind about it.

 

[bradyfan]

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 don't know why the Patriots haters are so upset. It's us fans who should feel cheated. The Pats played much better in 2007 after the videotaping stopped. We could have made it to a few more Superbowls if Belicheat had done this sooner.

 

[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 don't know why the Patriots haters are so upset. It's us fans who should feel cheated. The Pats played much better in 2007 after the videotaping stopped. We could have made it to a few more Superbowls if Belicheat had done this sooner.

I don't understand your perspective. The gawdy 2007 statistics came from New England taking advantage of Bill Polian's efforts to manipulate the Competition Committee into creating an unfair advantage in the passing game. "Cheating" is so rampant around the league that the teams that succeed are the ones that take advantage of the results of other organizations cheating.

 

[bradyfan]

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 don't know why the Patriots haters are so upset. It's us fans who should feel cheated. The Pats played much better in 2007 after the videotaping stopped. We could have made it to a few more Superbowls if Belicheat had done this sooner.

I don't understand your perspective. The gawdy 2007 statistics came from New England taking advantage of Bill Polian's efforts to manipulate the Competition Committee into creating an unfair advantage in the passing game. "Cheating" is so rampant around the league that the teams that succeed are the ones that take advantage of the results of other organizations cheating.

Wait, why do you blame the Patriots when the Colts cheated?

 

[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.

When people remember Mark McGuire's 70 homerun season, what will be remembered? No one's going to remember the steroids-but everyone will remember the record.

When it comes to the Pats people are gong to remember the cheating, no doubt about it.

Do most people remember the Niners as a team that manipulated the salary cap or as a team that was an amazing dynasty?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Do most people remember the Niners as a team that manipulated the salary cap or as a team that was an amazing dynasty?

49ers were an amazing dynasty. Never hear anything otherwise. Maybe a jab here or there, but nothing lasting or remotely serious.Everywhere I turn (in Cali), the Patriots are being called cheaters and worse.

No longer is the talk about how good they were or even if they are a dynasty - as if everything they have is ill-gotten gains.

 

[Wombat Killer]

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.

That's probably the most sensible post I've read from anybody on the subject. Illegal practice engagement? No. But, I believe BB when he says he thought it was within the rules. As evidence of this, they gave a full mea culpa when asked. AND most importantly, it wasn't like the guy was hiding to tape. He was in plain sight on the sideline. People had to see the guy with the videotape over the last 7 years. If it was a hidden camera, I'd buy the argument that he was trying to hide something.

Everything else you said, with the exception of playing the cheating card to enrage somebody, I'm on the same page.

It's pretty hard for me to believe Belichick's excuse when:1) Goodell didn't even believe it. ("This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules").

2) The Pats told the Jets they had to stop taping the end zone angles in the playoffs the year before. If the Pats honestly believed BB's claim as to how the rule worked, then they would not have believed they had grounds for telling the Jets to stop since the Jets weren't using the tape during the game.

I agree Despyzer had a good post though.

You can choose to disvelieve BB. He certainly was wrong. My point is merely that his actions correlate directly with his stated belief that he thought it was within the rules. There was no attempt to hide what was happening. When asked, they willingly gave up everything they had. As for the Jets episode, I can't explain why they told the Jets to stop. Did it maybe stem from the Jets denying the same privelage? I don't know.

But, at the end of the day, when you're trying to be a streaker, you cover up first. They didn't. That's why the stated belief that he thought it was within the rules rungs true with me.

Now, if you said they were using hidden cameras to get these shots, I'd say you have a point. But, the camera and camera man were in the wide open, not hiding from anybody. And as coaches they're constantly scouring the sidelines, looking for clues. Anybody who saw the taper knew what was up. No question in my mind about it.

They were caught red handed. What else could they have done?

 

[Pat Patriot]

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.

When people remember Mark McGuire's 70 homerun season, what will be remembered? No one's going to remember the steroids-but everyone will remember the record.

When it comes to the Pats people are gong to remember the cheating, no doubt about it.

Not my kids. They will remember what a great team the Patriots were and how many stand up great guys they had that led them.Tom Brody, Tedy Bruschi, Mike Vrabel, Willie McGinest, Ty Law. Thats what my kids will remember.

 

[HellToupee]

all the Patriots cheating threads are killing the pool for me

 

[Das Boot]

all the Patriots cheating threads are killing the pool for me

I know. Sucks that they cheated, doesn't it?