If the Pats weren't getting any advantage by doing what they were doing, then why did they do it?? Belichick was doing it for his health? If they weren't getting something from it, they wouldn't have wasted their time. Plain and simple. They cheated. They got caught. They got penalized.
1) If cheating didn't give the Patriots an advantage they would have never done it. 2) The fact that their win percentage in games decided by 3 points or less dropped significantly post spygate seems like a pretty strong indicator that they had benefited a little bit by knowing other teams defensive signals. 3) I never said the Patriots have a poor organization, just that they've never won a legit superbowl. Clearly they have a great QB and a great HC that has them contending for superbowls year in and year out. They just can't seem to make up that 3 points they gained by cheating to get over the hump. 4) The amount of time it takes to communicate a defense is not equal to the complexity of it.
Seriously, what can you possibly get from taping from the sidelines instead of the press box or end zone?
These guys will try to deny cheating till the bitter end. There's really no point in arguing with them. The rest of the world knows the Pats have never won a legit championship.
You are right its pointless arguing with them. What I don't get is the way Pats fans make excuses for it or whatever, as if they were personally cheating. If they truly think that it didn't provide an advantage then they should be furious at Belichick as a fan because their SBs are tainted. If I'm a Pats Fan I would respond with - "I can't believe Belichick was that ignorant to do that stuff because it just fuels you guys, but in the end I don't give a crap what anyone says nobody is able to take away the joy I felt from those SB victories.." But to get defensive or whatever is gay, especially since if something came out the Giants were cheating or something in their SB victories it would be CRY CITY, MASS up there.
Yeah I mean I could buy an argument saying "we would have won anyway" because there's probably a good chance they would have. Obviously we don't know either way, but at least that's an argument. There is NO argument defending the cheating or saying they didn't get an advantage. Belichick doesn't do things for the hell of it.. He did that to get an advantage. I can't say how big of an advantage he got, but these games come down to inches sometimes and every little bit helps. To argue that is silly.
Does that really matter? A rule is in place for a reason. The rule was violated. Simple as that. I don't even understand how any person can even begin to defend spy gate or water down what happened. You can call it cheating or exploiting a technicality, at the end of the day the result is the same - violation of a rule. I am not one to look at spy gate as a result for the Patriots 3 super bowls. At the end of the day, a ruling was made, whether I agree with it or not. At the end of the day, the Patriots still have 3 super bowls and their QB and HC are a lock for the HOF. If bellicheat wasn't gaining a slight advantage he would not do it. If there was no significant advantage why would the rule be in place to begin with? I know you're not stupid and I get you want to defend your team, but at some point you have to realize there are some things you are right about and there are somethings better left alone. Its like saying - What advantage to you get from watching the game from field 50 yard line first row and upper level 26th row.
Pats fans never have an answer to the point why cheat if you don't benefit from it. If Belichik was really cheating, and he at the same time felt the Pats were not getting anything out of it, he would have to be a total moron to go on cheating. It cost the Pats a hell of a lot when they did get caught. If that was all for nothing, then Belichik should have been castigated for being stupid.
I can't speak for all Pats fans, but your take on this accurately describes how I feel about it. Specifically I'm still pissed at two things: 1. That Belichick kept doing this after being warned to stop by a league-wide memo in July 2007. (Two months before Mangini "turned him in.") It's forever put Pats fans on the defensive, and for those of us who were around for the dark days of this franchise, it sucks. 2. That he wouldn't speak about it afterwards, or after the season was over. Saying nothing invited speculation to the fullest, and it didn't help that he was his usual close-mouthed self about it. I realize trying to change people's minds is a waste of time. I really only get annoyed when people play the Spygate card and clearly have no idea what they're talking about. Kind of like the geniuses who don't realize that the Pats were filming defensive signals only (and who are generally too stupid to know that there ARE no offensive signals to film, and there haven't been since radios started getting used in QBs' helmets.
There are exceptions, like Martin and Chrebet (and there are also Pats players who fall into that category, like Troy Brown and Tedy Bruschi), but those guys are the exception and not the rule.
Thanks. It kind of goes along with the "Belichick is a jerk" (he probably is) and "Brady is a metro-sexual fancyboy" (also probably true) arguments. :wink: No point in arguing those. I think his comeback from the stroke (actually wasn't a full-fledged stroke, but a TIA) spoke volumes about his love of the game. I think he's been fair as an analyst when it comes to his former team. He's praised them at times and has ripped them at times.
The Comiss might have thought there was an illegal advantage when he fined Belicheat $250K and took away Pat's draft pics.....just sayin.
Or he might not like a team doing something he told them not to do a year prior. Same situation with the Saints bounties. He isn't punishing for the rules broken, he's punishing because he was lied to. It's how he works.
