If we really think the Pats, Belichick and Brady succeeded unfairly...

[Jackass]

I agree with Vet - we will only be able to gauge the Pats based on their road games moving forward.

 

Does anyone seriously think the Pats performance on the field is going to be impacted going forward?

[Brentastic]

Does anyone seriously think the Pats performance on the field is going to be impacted going forward?

I personally do not - however, it will be interesting to see how they perform on the road for the remainder of the season.

[Azazello1313]

think about it this way....nixon was like 25 points ahead of mcgovern when the watergate scandal went down. if nixon didn't cheat, he still would have won the 72 election easily. it still tarnished everything he did, and rightfully so.

[Puddy]

think about it this way....nixon was like 25 points ahead of mcgovern when the watergate scandal went down. if nixon didn't cheat, he still would have won the 72 election easily. it still tarnished everything he did, and rightfully so.

 

Agreed but that isn't the point of this thread (although it was of some of the others). This thread was posted to refute that the reason the Patriots are good is due to cheating. If they continue to play as successfully as before, then they will prove otherwise. Doesn't get them off the hook for their transgressions however.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Puddy

[Delicious_bass]

Anyone else think this is being blown way out of proportion? Dont get me wrong, if it came down from the League that teams are not to video tape opposing sidelines, then that is the rule and the Pats should be punished if proven guilty. That said, it seems like a lot of people feel as though NE employed sinister tactics no one else would even think about. Realistically, what did they do? Video tape the gestures/signals the D coord (or D coaches) was doing in plain sight? In my opinion, this is no different than a baserunner on 2nd looking in at the catcher's signal and relaying it to the batter. It might not be the most sportsman or ethical way to play the game, but I hardly think it is as bad as people are making it out to be. It may be bush-league, but is it really that bad? Collinsworth came dangerously close to lumping Belichick in with the likes of Vick and Adam Jones, offering that BB should be suspended in much the same way as they were. In this thread, I have read opinions that what NE is apparently guilty of is as bad as Bonds juicing. I guess I dont see it in nearly the same way.

 

Try this one...

 

Neighborhood hottie is laying out sunbathing in a community green space. Guys in every house within view are all checking her out. 3 of 4 are using 2 hands for max spankage. One guy has the other hand on a camera so he can revisit the episode in the future. Who is the jerkoff?

 

Terrible analogy I know, but I think you get my point. Now, if it comes to light that there is more to it, then that is different. If the Pats are bugging lockerooms, stealing play books, tapping(or interfering with) frequencies and AV equipment, etc., then I think you can call them whatever you want and start labeling them/taking wins away/etc. But for video-taping things that are done in plain sight, I dont see that its that different than a coach or players looking across the field and trying to figure out what the signs mean to the defensive players. And I'd wager all 32 teams are doing that.

[SMF]

Anyone else think this is being blown way out of proportion? Dont get me wrong, if it came down from the League that teams are not to video tape opposing sidelines, then that is the rule and the Pats should be punished if proven guilty. That said, it seems like a lot of people feel as though NE employed sinister tactics no one else would even think about. Realistically, what did they do? Video tape the gestures/signals the D coord (or D coaches) was doing in plain sight? In my opinion, this is no different than a baserunner on 2nd looking in at the catcher's signal and relaying it to the batter. It might not be the most sportsman or ethical way to play the game, but I hardly think it is as bad as people are making it out to be. It may be bush-league, but is it really that bad? Collinsworth came dangerously close to lumping Belichick in with the likes of Vick and Adam Jones, offering that BB should be suspended in much the same way as they were. In this thread, I have read opinions that what NE is apparently guilty of is as bad as Bonds juicing. I guess I dont see it in nearly the same way.

 

Try this one...

 

Neighborhood hottie is laying out sunbathing in a community green space. Guys in every house within view are all checking her out. 3 of 4 are using 2 hands for max spankage. One guy has the other hand on a camera so he can revisit the episode in the future. Who is the jerkoff?

 

Terrible analogy I know, but I think you get my point. Now, if it comes to light that there is more to it, then that is different. If the Pats are bugging lockerooms, stealing play books, tapping(or interfering with) frequencies and AV equipment, etc., then I think you can call them whatever you want and start labeling them/taking wins away/etc. But for video-taping things that are done in plain sight, I dont see that its that different than a coach or players looking across the field and trying to figure out what the signs mean to the defensive players. And I'd wager all 32 teams are doing that.

 

+1 agree that the Pats deserved to be punished and I am embarressed as a fan for what they did...But to say video taping is the reason they won all the games they did is a little overboard

Edited September 17, 2007 by SMF

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I am in th ecamp that has felt the Pats wee very week champions in thier first two superbowl victories. They were lucky and at the right place in time. Numerous teams in the preceeding twenty years that were much more talented fell short of the mark. That is the nature of sport.

 

Currently they are a dominating talent. For me, however, their legacy will be somewhat tarnished, though not much. I believe they accomplished what many teams have tried in the espionage game so I do not go overboard in my condemnation.

 

As for BB, he is one arrogant prick. His press conference was a classic in the genre` of SUPERCALIFRAGILISTICEXPIALIDOCIOUS !!! You press conferences.

[ElwayFan2007]

I just don't understand why a team with that much talent and experience had to sneak that low?!

I can understand the Raiders, Bills or (enter other desperate team here) would have to stoop that low to video tape Defense signals... but the PATS?!?!?!

[Crazysight]

I am in th ecamp that has felt the Pats wee very week champions in thier first two superbowl victories. They were lucky and at the right place in time. Numerous teams in the preceeding twenty years that were much more talented fell short of the mark.

 

 

Right...the St. Louis Rams and Pittsburgh Steelers were supposedly "much more talented" as well that first year. Yet the Patriots still managed to knock both of them out head-to-head.

[Bill Swerski]

Right...the St. Louis Rams and Pittsburgh Steelers were supposedly "much more talented" as well that first year. Yet the Patriots still managed to knock both of them out head-to-head.

 

From a player standpoint, the Rams absolutely were a better team. They beat them in the '01 regular season and basically got out-coached in the SB. It also didn't help that Warner suffered that hand injury.

[Caveman_Nick]

Does anyone here have a real form grasp on exactly what they did wrong? From the broadcast last night, I got the impression that it wasn;t the videotaping of signals, but rather where they had the cameraman stationed that was the problem.

 

 

I am not defending that they did or didn't do something wrong, just trying to find out exactly what it was. If it was indeed just where they had a cameraman stationed...well...that's one thing. If there is more to it, I would like to find out officially what it is. Any good source info on this is much appreciated.

[Caveman_Nick]

Does anyone here have a real form grasp on exactly what they did wrong? From the broadcast last night, I got the impression that it wasn;t the videotaping of signals, but rather where they had the cameraman stationed that was the problem.

 

 

I am not defending that they did or didn't do something wrong, just trying to find out exactly what it was. If it was indeed just where they had a cameraman stationed...well...that's one thing. If there is more to it, I would like to find out officially what it is. Any good source info on this is much appreciated.

 

 

This bit in an article on NFL.com points to what I am saying here...

 

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

 

In the game broadcast, John Madden pointed out the booth that the teams were allowed to videotape from. I can't find anything that says that videotaping signals is against the rules. Any help is appreciated on this.

 

EDIT:

 

From the same article...

 

That was re-emphasized in a memo sent Sept. 6 to NFL head coaches and general managers. In it, Ray Anderson, the league's executive vice president of football operations wrote: "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game

 

There it is, for those that hadn't seen it.

 

*sigh*

 

That doesn not make me a happy fan.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Caveman_Nick

[Bill Swerski]

Does anyone here have a real form grasp on exactly what they did wrong? From the broadcast last night, I got the impression that it wasn;t the videotaping of signals, but rather where they had the cameraman stationed that was the problem.

 

 

I am not defending that they did or didn't do something wrong, just trying to find out exactly what it was. If it was indeed just where they had a cameraman stationed...well...that's one thing. If there is more to it, I would like to find out officially what it is. Any good source info on this is much appreciated.

 

That was the impression that I got as well, but it's probably a lot easier to steal signals from the opposing team's defensive coordinator from that position than it is up in the press box or in the endzone. I don't know if videotaping signals is against the rules or not. I'm assuming not, as coaches tend to hold their playsheets over their mouths while communicating with their QBs.

 

If that's all that they did, I agree with many of the people here that it's not the worst thing in the world. But I also heard last night that the Jets are considering asking the league to launch an investigation over the illegal frequencies that the Pats were using last week. If it's true that they were doing it to jam the other team's coach/QB radio communications, then that's a HUGE deal. As much as I would love to see the Pats embarrassed, I hope it isn't true because that would be really bad for the league in general.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[Caveman_Nick]

That was the impression that I got as well, but it's probably a lot easier to steal signals from the opposing team's defensive coordinator from that position than it is up in the press box or in the endzone. I don't know if videotaping signals is against the rules or not. I'm assuming not, as coaches tend to hold their playsheets over their mouths while communicating with their QBs.

 

If that's all that they did, I agree with many of the people here that it's not the worst thing in the world. But I also heard last night that the Jets are considering asking the league to launch an investigation over the illegal frequencies that the Pats were using last week. If it's true that they were doing it to jam the other team's coach/QB radio communications, then that's a HUGE deal. As much as I would love to see the Pats embarrassed, I hope it isn't true because that would be really bad for the league in general.

 

 

Check the edit to my above post. Not good.

[Bill Swerski]

Check the edit to my above post. Not good.

 

Interesting. Still, if that's all that they did, it's not something that will tarnish their accomplishments forever. If they did something more dubious in addition, then that's a different story.

[charty]

Does anyone here have a real form grasp on exactly what they did wrong? From the broadcast last night, I got the impression that it wasn;t the videotaping of signals, but rather where they had the cameraman stationed that was the problem.

 

 

I am not defending that they did or didn't do something wrong, just trying to find out exactly what it was. If it was indeed just where they had a cameraman stationed...well...that's one thing. If there is more to it, I would like to find out officially what it is. Any good source info on this is much appreciated.

If you are referring to the coaches cameras in the upper endzone and upper sideline being legal, and if camera placement was the only issue.....there is more to it.

Those cameras capture the high level formations, they get the entire play in the shot so they can watch patterns, defensive movements, etc. If they used one of those cameras to zoom in on the defensive coaches, it would still be illegal.

The camera behind the Pats bench was zoomed in on the defensive coaches, which again, is illegal. The Jets had 3 guys signaling defensive calls, which is BAU because everyone (camera or no camera) is watching those D signals looking for tells. So the Pats would have to take the film, try to decipher the correct call and which 2 are the bogus calls. Chances are that team would change signals for the next game anyway, so I'm not sure what this would have got them besides an overworked video assistant.

Bellichick is such a film nut, his father was one of the first that analyzed film, his father let Bill analyze Navy film as a kid, that he wants as much data as possible.

Edited September 17, 2007 by charty

[Bill Swerski]

I think that it would be best if somebody from the league filmed the games, rather than somebody from the team.

[tonyr0802]

Try this one...

 

Neighborhood hottie is laying out sunbathing in a community green space. Guys in every house within view are all checking her out. 3 of 4 are using 2 hands for max spankage. One guy has the other hand on a camera so he can revisit the episode in the future. Who is the jerkoff?

 

Depends, is she topless or not? How old?

[gilwiggum]

From a player standpoint, the Rams absolutely were a better team. They beat them in the '01 regular season and basically got out-coached in the SB. It also didn't help that Warner suffered that hand injury.

 

 

Martz actually hinted to his team after that regular season game that they would meet the Pats in the superbowl

[gilwiggum]

I am not sure if this has been mentioned in other posts, but here goes. A few people have mentioned that all of the PATS super bowls are tainted. I can understand that logic and would hope it's not true that the PATS won those on the up and up. But if it were true that the PATS were videoing all that time, shouldn't we also be crticizing Mangini? I mean after all he was a defensive coach for all those Super Bowls, don't you think he would have been in on the plan? I think if Belichick is dirty, than Mangini has to be dirty. Mangini may not cheat now, but if Belichick cheated in the past than so did he.

 

Does this make sense to anyone else or am I grasping at straws here? Man did I pick a bad week to start checking out the message boards here, I think if I could put a paper bag over my pic of Pat the Patriot I would.