I've never understood this common comment. They were taping defensive signals from the sideline. What else could be on the tapes? Use your best biased, Pats hating, Belichick is satan opinion. What could be there that the other 30k cell phone cameras, TV cameras, and 80k people were unable to see in 3 hours?
This is a fair question. That I rarely answer simply because its pure speculation. But since you ask I'll offer it up and you can let me know if makes any sense. 1. The first thing to remember is that teams are always trying to find trends that they can exploit. My belief is the BB, in the off season, when they had the time to break down the raw data. Time to determine who the "live coach" coach was , and what the signals meant. Time to match what was called and see if it changed based on the offensive formation (in other words if a cover 2 zone slant was called, would they stay in it if the Pats came out with 3 WRs, or a spread formation. But mostly I think it was used to see if the DC had developed any tendencies in his play calling. DC's move from team to team, but the tendencies are often forever. So have, even an indication of what a DC is likely going to call in certain situations MIGHT be of value some day. 2. What frustrating for me was you can get the exact same info with a pair of binoculars and a clip board. Filming was just a more efficient way to gather the data. In fact you can get the same information just watching the coaches tape. These are just less efficient methods. 3. Most teams were happily duplicating what the Pats were doing on their own. Then the memo comes down in early 2007 from the new commish, banning the filming of an opposing teams signs. This made no sense to BB. If you want to make stealing signs illegal, make it illegal, Don't try and just limit the methods you can use to steal the signs. That's like saying its OK to rob a bank, but you can only use revolvers, no automatic weapons. I think BB would have been happy with a simple rule saying don't steal signs PERIOD. But the leagues memo didn't do it. It made no sense to BB. To him it was just another officious memo from the league, telling teams how to run their business. And because it made no sense from BB's point of view, what was the point. You either end signal stealing or not. Personally I think he continued to film, despite the memo to bring the issue to a head. If you remember the Pats used NO stealth in filming during the Jets game. Their film guy was in full Pats gear, out in the open, almost looking to be caught. I think he was making his point expecting some kind of retribution, but it would be worth it to ultimately clear up the incongruity of the memo.AND I don't doubt he was testing the new commish as well. Clearly they had no idea of Goodell's resolve and how pissed he was at the Pats for ignoring him. That's why I think BB still taped, despite the warnings, and that's what I think the Pats, and many other teams, got from the practice of filming signs. Since teams regularly changed signals, there was no "magical" huge advantage to be gained. Just another example of the anal retentive kind of drive HC's have to leave no stone unturned it trying to squeeze the last bit of knowledge out of anything that MIGHT help them down the road. What I have NEVER understood why neither the Patriots OR the league ever fully explained the limits of the "crime" or the punishment. Once the league announced the punishments and stated the Pats gained no unfair advantage, they never followed up to explain their actions. Both parties just left questions go unanswered and allowed speculation to run rampant. Speculation that harmed both the Pats AND the league. Listen, if the Pats HAD gained an unfair advantage, then call them cheaters and punish them for it. Its not like other teams hadn't been caught REALLY cheating before. The Cowboys, Niners, and Broncos ALL were fined and lost draft picks for cheating on the cap and gaining a true advantage on everyone else. Just a year later in 2008 the Dolphins were caught miking players to steal QB calls on the LOS, and they were merely fined. So why would the commish emphatically state that the Pats gained no advantage from the filming and then allow all the speculation that tarnished both the league and the Pats. Compare this to how the Niner, Cowboy, and Bronco scandals was handled by Tagliabu, It makes no sense. I guess I'll have to wait for BB's or Goodell's memoirs to give me and the rest of league the real story behind the story. Like I said Biggie, that's AN explanation. One that makes some sense to me, but I'd love to know the actual story.
This. If there's one team I want to beat twice (three times?) this year it's the Pats. Hate that team.
First of all you do in effect concede there was a practical advantage to filming compared to, as you stated the example, using binoculars. So there is that. It WAS an advantage. More efficient in short is not the same as less efficient. I also think you overstate how obvious it was. It ended up taking a complaint from Mangini to make the NFL aware of it. Mangini by all accounts figured it out, perhaps based on things he knew about while he was still on the Pats. Also, the Pats presumably have the same right as everyone else to comment on and make suggestions about league rules and their interpretation. There is no evdience the Pats did this about this memo and rule. Why violate the rule to get that interpretation without having first tried to make comments? That makes no sense. At best it smacks of arrogance, as if Belichik was entitled to choose his own means of "raising" the issue. In short I do not find your explanation persuasive.
The whole thing was mishandled by Goodell. He should have showed the tapes and not destroyed them. Also I think when the nfl asked the pats to hand over the tapes, they gave them days or even a week to do so. If Bill is as arrogant as he seems to blatantly want to break a rule, he probably won't hand over everything. The worst part for the pats is that the patriots compared to their 01-04 run have not been as great a playoff team. They win one title and spy gate is no longer throw around. But they lost playoff games, had some really poor Brady performances, and a couple 1 and dones. Realistically their team has gotten worse since 01-04, but it lined up with spy gate leading to all the speculation. If they don't win one again with bill and Brady, people will always speculate, but they brought that on themselves.
Then you explain why, he had is guy dressed in full Pats gear at an opposing stadium, out in the open, knowing he was violating a league memo, if he was trying to avoid being caught
How else is he going to get on the field? Sneak in doing barrel rolls behind players and media in full camo gear?
Yeah, I guess its an 'advantage' but it certainly isn't a big enough advantage to risk the ire of the league office. It had to be something more than that. Based on what he knew?????? I GUESS. Believe me, Mangini was taping as well, There are pictures of a Jets cameraman at Gillette the year before. Only I guess he stopped when the memo came out. Oh, no doubt BB's arrogance had a lot to do with this. I never said that he was blameless in all this. BB, thought that the memo was stupid and made no sense (and I would agree, wouldn't you?) How he handled his derision was the "crime". Instead of "complaining thru the proper channels, he basically said "screw you, your memo is stupid, and the restrictioin makes no sense, so there is no sense following it. I'm BB and I know best. (that's the arrogance part :wink: ) I'm also sure a part of all this was the "testing" of the new Commissioner. I doubt BB would have been so disrespectful of Tagliabu. Perhaps BB didn't have a high regard for Goodell when he first got the job. Well I stated it was AN explanation, not THE explanation, so its understandable you are skeptical. However I would still contend 3 things 1. The filming of the signals didn't rise to the level of an "unfair advantage" given that it was still legal to steal signals, and all the raw data was available to every team by other means 2. Since BB clearly wasn't trying to avoid being "caught", there is more to this dispute between the the league and BB that we don't know about. 3. The entire issue occurred in 2007 and had NOTHING to do with what happened with the Pats 3 super bowl wins. So even if you maintain the worst, I don't see how one can say any of those wins were "tainted".....Except to piss off spoiled Pats fans, or to make yourself feel better about being a Jets fan. :wink:
The thing on your bold statement is probably true, BUT we don't know that. We do know the Patriots were caught, and they have 0 super bowls since then, including some poor playoff performances from their offense and Brady. The better and more realistic reasons the Pats haven't won SB since spygate is the teams rides on Brady's shoulders, Weis is no longer there, and they have had trouble replacing the aging veterans on defense. Basically by getting caught cheating/bending the rules/doing something illegal (however you wanna phrase it), and not winning a Super Bowl afterwards, the Patriots opened up the speculation maybe it had impact on their previous success. Who knows that they weren't doing this earlier. How come they aren't as successful now. I honestly don't think it had much if any affect on the previous Super Bowls, but the Pats haven't won the big game since spygate so it is open for speculation.
Thank God Ken is here for an explanation. I suppose since Belicheck himself is too busy to make any sort of legitimate public comment he sent his understudy to clear things up for everyone. I feel much better now knowing that it was done on purpose with the GOAL to get caught, provided NO advantage, and was only done in one season (2007 after superbowls). The whole thing makes a lot of sense now - thanks Ken!
Mangini went on record a couple of weeks ago saying that he knew about the taping from his time in NE, and "wasn't going to give them the convenience of doing it in our stadium." He didn't "figure" anything out. He said he told the NFL about it when he left for NY in 2006. Then the league-wide memo went out in July '07. And Spygate broke two months later. There are about a gazillion articles out there saying basically the same thing, but here's a link anyway: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/01/eric-mangini-regrets-turning-in-the-patriots-over-spygate/ I can see why you're so angrily cynical about it... I'm sure Spygate ripped a couple of championships away from the Jets, who surely would have dominated the NFL from 2001-2004 if it only hadn't been for the dastardly cheating ways of Bill Belichick.
I believe Mangini said that he didn't expect everything to become so public and there was an interesting debate about is something illegal only morally wrong when it works against you?? regardless, you don't get credit for putting out a fire that you helped start
Exactly, but the majority of Jets fans somehow claim (without one iota of proof) the Pats received some sort of competitive advantage. I have never seen one post, or written article, about that "so-called" cometitive advantage the Pats gained by taping from the sidelines instead of from the press box. .
Thankfully you guys have now educated us as to why it was all being done. It was just a recreational activity done by the Pats that was of no use to them and gave them no competitive advantage. When the league told them to stop they got caught on purpose. We know that they got caught on purpose because the recreational camera man was wearing Patriots gear instead of camouflage. It's all starting to make sense and thank God we can finally see the light. The fact that their win percentage in games decided by 3 points or less has dropped significantly since spygate is not an indicator of anything, it's just a dumb thing that haters make up.
You don't destroy evidence that is benign and exculpatory. There was something there the NFL didn't want anyone to see, period. Nobody knows what it was, or what actual advantage it conferred, because it doesn't exist anymore. So you are left with dickless Patriots homers pretending it was useless, and hapless Jets homers acting like they'd never won a game before or since. Neither is likely correct. And that's really all anybody knows.
If this was so useless to the Pats as you seem to claim it is ... why do it then? Why put effort into concealing it if it didn't serve a purpose??
Personally, I think the only reason the Pats got caught was because off BB's arrogance in ignoring the league memo. I don't think he got caught on purpose, but he definitely defied a league mandate. Somehow, he thought he was bigger than the NFL.
Do you want to actually discuss the topic? Posters have asked questions, and you've basically done nothing but mock the responses, which are not nearly as ridiculous as you're making them out to be. Maybe, you know, learning something about it would actually be a good thing. Their record in close games pre-and-post Spygate makes sense on a lot of levels. No one maintains a winning percentage of close to .800 in those types of games over the course of a decade. Water always finds its level. That's why they're called averages. I would say that 10-3 was an anomaly, not 10-8. There is Spygate video in this AP story, starting at around 00:23 and running through to about 00:40. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2vzK3HK1aQ I'm not sure what the big deal is here. Everyone agrees that the Patriots were filming defensive hand signals, which is exactly what we saw in the video released back then, and what you'll see if you click the link. What else would you suggest might have been "covered up?" Video of other teams' walk-throughs, which would only happen at a neutral site like the Super Bowl? I'm asking a valid question here. What else could have been on there that you're suggesting could be so scandalous? Film of other teams' playbooks? Arlen Spector is with you guys... he thinks the Patriots stole a SB from the Eagles. And he came up with the Warren Commission's "Magic Bullet Theory," so... :wink:
There was no effort to conceal it. If they had done that, they probably never would have gotten caught. The guy filming was on the sideline in Pats gear. All they had to do to conceal it was put him in a private box somewhere or even in the stands. And as for the other question, read back a couple of pages.
