Yes you have no idea what was on the tapes... what they used them for... why they found it necessary to do so.. Etc. Nobody knows except those Patriots directly involved. The only thing we know is they did it and that you are trying to defend it.
Sounds like you and Demo are on the same page, and I definitely get what you're saying. The only negative to showing the tapes would be that teams would have their signals exposed league-wide instead of just in Foxboro, lol... :rofl: No, I guess I just don't know what they would have done with a season's worth of film like that. It would have been something like 50 hours of video. Marathon on NFL Network? Maybe a pay-per-view event they could have cashed in on? Let me ask a hypothetical question. What if Rex Ryan came out and said, "Hey, my brother Rob was a coach on those teams." (Which he was.) "People who think they won championships because of Spygate have no idea what they're talking about." Would Rex, as a single source without further explanation, be enough?
OK, we're not communicating very well here so let me ask the question a different way. What else could one football team film to gain an advantage over another football team? A practice or walk-through? Not likely, unless both teams were at a neutral site. And the former Pats employee (Matt Walsh) who made that accusation was outed as a liar and a disgruntled former employee who was fired for poor job performance months before any of this came up. Locker room talk? Only if there were hidden cameras at Gillette. And then you're getting into tinfoil hat territory. Sideline instructions from coordinators? Playbooks?
If Rex came out to say that, it is not enough. I am not saying the Patriots won 3 super bowls because of Spy Gate, never have and never will. The league acted in a manner which made it seem like they were hiding something. Also I do not care to watch the tapes, but the commissioners explanation was "they were taping defensive signals, that is what they told us and that is what was on the tape, so I destroyed them", is not good enough. Let me ask you something, if the roles were switched, The Jets dominated the decade, won 3 championships, then were caught violating a league rule (Spy Gate) and all the commissioner said was that, and all the commissioner did was go and burn the evidence. Would you not be a little angry? Would you not question the JETS motive and speculate the advantages it might have given them?
I don't think it had such an effect that they won 3 Super Bowls because of it. Even if Rex came out and said that it wouldn't change my personal opinion about it, but I don't think it will quell Jets fans everywhere. Because as you stated he has a vested interest in the success and "cleanliness" of the titles. That also means Patriots will be defending something that comes out of Rex's mouth, would you do that? :grin:
I posted this earlier in the thread and you ignored it. Care to respond now? 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?
To be 100% honest here, I don't know that I can answer that question objectively at this point. It's been almost 5 years since Spygate and during that entire time I've maintained that filming signals and using them in-game would require a pretty massive, coordinated effort involving at least four or five people. I'm not saying it would be impossible... just highly improbable. The film would have to be matched up against the still shots that teams get on the sidelines, and against the game log, to determine formations and apparent play calls. Part of that would involve determining specific defensive assignments... did the weak side LB blitz or drop into coverage? Man or zone? There are 11 moving parts on a defense, and you'd have to break that all down while the game was going on. Then, assuming that the signals were successfully "decoded," someone would have to watch the defensive coordinator, relay the play call to your own offensive coordinator, who would then call something in to the QB that would be advantageous against the defense that was called. All within the confines of the play clock. And then, on top of that, there is the whole question of execution. So I admit to being biased and assume that my take would be a lot different under the scenario you gave me. It's just hard to come up with an honest reply on that, because I know my mind is already in a certain place on the topic itself, not so much the team that was involved. I do remember the Broncos cheating the salary cap in the late 90s, and it didn't bother me a ton. Probably, for the most part, because the Patriots weren't one of their main rivals in those years. It's a totally fair question by you though... I suck for not being able to answer it, LOL... :beer: I actually like Rex a lot. He's a blowhard for sure, but I think he's great for the NFL. He's like the Anti-Belichick, and it's kind of refreshing to hear a coach talk openly and honestly instead of the canned non-responses Belichick gives in press conferences. Thanks for your reply though... I'm glad to hear at least some of you don't believe that the Patriots only won those titles because of Spygate. If it were that easy to "steal" championships, I would think it would have been done before, lots of times. Even if the worst is true, Spygate only involved defensive signals, and then - like I said above - there's the whole matter of executing the play. Not a given, even when you know what's supposed to happen. As we know, defensive players blow assignments, get out of position, etc. This is what I've been asking too. I don't mean it in a combative way... it's just an honest, shrug-your-shoulders kind of question. Everyone involved, the accusers and the accused, said it was the same thing, and no one is disagreeing about the content of those videos. The tapes didn't have to be destroyed, but there was little purpose in saving them. I think people just wanted the Patriots to be torn down, which again, is understandable. Happens in all sports when teams have sustained periods of success.
EXACTLY - the only explanation I have ever heard for the burning of the tapes was this one. The Pats were required to turn over ALL their tapes. The league burned them because if any tapes turned up later they would have proof that the Pats didn't turn over them all, like they should have. Now this doesn't satisfy me either. but its the only explanation I have ever heard. I just mention it for what its worth. The bottom line the league TOTALLY botched the handling of this issue. Goodell showed a clip of what the tapes were. He stated that the Pats didn't gain an advantage.....and never commented on it again. What this allowed the ravenous media to do was speculate (which is what it does best these days) And speculate they did, bring out all kinds of conspiracy theories, including the debunked Matt Walsh claims. All of which went without response from the league, given them tacit legitimacy in some peoples eyes.(the haters) At WORST, even if you thought there WAS cheating, it was a lot more benign that what the Cowboys, Niners, Bronco's and Dolphins did, which went virtually unnoticed by the press, and quickly forgotten to this day. There are NO Pats fans who thought the Pats shouldn't be punished for ignoring the memo. But there are many of us, including myself who thought the penalties were way to harsh (I don't care about the money, but I think a 3rd or 4th round pick would have been more appropriate than a first. That's what the Bronco's gave up IIRC). However given the fact Goodell was the new boss on the block, even his over reaction was understandable He felt he had to make a strong statement. However it was his silence after the fact,that left both the Pats AND the league hanging....unnecessarily. BTW- Thanks again for "getting it"
youve got to be kidding me if you think there are people on the sidelines of games dedicated to trying to figure out the signals of the other team. the coach will try to remember a signal if he sees it but otherwise they have other things to worry about on game day. the fact that the pats were videotaping them should be proof of that. and if there was no advantage to be gained, why risk so much? is belichek just a moron? be sensible about the situation. he never thought he would get caught, much like people in his position (highly successful/popular) think all the time. all it took was a pissed off old friend to make the walls come crashing down.
....and that's why he had his camera guy out in full Pats gear, out in the open on the sideline of an opposing stadium
[YOUTUBE]HixaHHDU5js[/YOUTUBE] "We had people out there trying to look at signals," "We had guys go to games, they would take the signal caller, write it down, and they would take it back. They would match up the signals with certain defenses or the certain plays that were being called." - Bill Cowher "Our guy keeps a pair of binoculars on their signal-callers every game. With any luck, we have their defensive signals figured out by halftime. Sometimes, by the end of the first quarter." - Mike Shanahan http://www.secsportsfan.com/taping-is-legal-kiddies.html "scouting NFL signals is commonplace and legal." - Roger Goodell http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/8347748/8348419 The Patriots broke the rules, and I don't mind people labeling that as "cheating", but please don't act like you know what what NFL teams do and don't do behind the scenes better than anyone else. It just makes you look dumb when an NFL coach proves you wrong.
2 guys isnt shit. just because goodell is obsessed with publicity and kept everything neat and clean doesnt mean a thing. the tapes were destroyed. however way you want to try and spin it, goodell thought something on the tapes should never be seen by anybody outside of the circle. some coaches might try to scout signals from the booth with binoculars, most wont waste their time with that sort of thing. nobody else has put nearly as much time into it as belicheck apparently has.
This is the only part of your posts that I even care about, not the part where you accuse the Pats of cheating. Why do you even bother trying to sound more knowledgeable than everyone else? It is obvious that you are just guessing like everyone else. At least I provided some sources... do you have anything at all to support that statement? Coaches might not do it, but many (if not all) teams have employees whose responsibility on game day is specifically to observe and try to decipher the opposing team's signals. And if two coaches (and the commissioner) aren't enough: Q: Did you ever steal signals? Jimmy Johnson: Oh in a heartbeat, yeah. Yes I did. Q: Via video, Jimmy? Or no? JJ: Oh yeah, I did it with video and so did a lot of other teams in the league. Just to make sure that you could study it and take your time, because you’re going to play the other team the second time around. But a lot of coaches did it, this was commonplace. http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/s...23/jimmy-johnson-thinks-spygate-is-overblown/ "I don’t know if everyone was doing it, but everyone might’ve had a method of trying to do it. Maybe he did it better than everyone else. OK? And I’ll tell you this: In all honesty, I’ve coached as a head coach 15 years and an assistant four years, I know some things that have been done in the National Football League and I could document them, if I wanted to, that are far worse than that ever came close to being." - Dick Vermiel http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/s...ides-todays-spygate-update-what-is-this-2007/ “One of the coaches was actually waving at the camera, so it’s clear that teams, to me, recognize that taking signals from another team is something that they do, so they have very complex systems to make sure that they don’t allow their plays to be intercepted.” - Herm Edwards http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-03-02/sports/29433517_1_defensive-signals-bill-belichick-jets/2 Specifically, Johnson said Howard Mudd, the Colts' offensive line coach, "was the best in the entire league at stealing signals" when Mudd was an assistant to Marty Schottenheimer with the Kansas City Chiefs from 1989 to 1992. http://www.aolnews.com/2007/09/29/jimmy-johnson-howard-mudd-was-the-best-in-the-entire-league-at/ “He said that once when he was filming a game, the Jets game, the guy next to him seemed to be doing the same thing he was doing. But he didn’t get too high and mighty about it, since he was doing the same thing. He said aside from that he knows of no other, nothing else.” - Specter (talking about Matt Walsh) http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2008/05/specter_sound_b.html If you think that teams are not trying to steal signals (even legally), then it is you who "got to be kidding", when all the evidence refutes that. NFL teams aren't too busy, or too lazy, to try to get an advantage when the opportunity is there. Especially when they are permitted to do it legally by simply using pen and paper instead of a camera.
:beer: Common ground acknowledged between a Jets and Pats fan on an internet forum? The world must be coming to an end :smile:
This is just "weak sauce", displaced. You are basically saying that the only way the Pats can prove they weren't "cheating" is to win a superbowl? : Isn't the fact that they've won more games than any team SINCE 2007 count for anything. And even if they lost 2 superbowls in the last minute of the game, no other team can say they've been in more superbowls than the Pats in the last 5 years. You know, its HARD to get to the superbowl, let alone win the game. You indict the Pats for not winning a game that the Jet haven't even BEEN to in 43 year, Meanwhile the Pats have been in SIX in just the last 15 years, 5 in the last 10. But you are right, about one thing, it just is all "speculation". In fact not even speculation. Its more like haters who need to justify their own team's failures, by trying to tear down another's success. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to watch your team be 0 for 43, when your arch rivals are 5 for 10. So I understand how tempting it is to latch on to a spurious premise to make yourself feel better about your team. It doesn't make it right. (though like I said, I can see it being a satisfying weapon to use, if only to piss off spoiled Pats fans, when they get too full of themselves)
Your math is off. The Patriots are 3 for 11. 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Count 'em. Eleven seasons. Three Super Bowl championships. Don't you go braggin' about Super Bowl losses now. C'mon, man.
Well you know there would be little to no speculation if the Pats went 19-0. I never said the only way to close the the speculation was for the Pats to win a SB, but clearly it hasn't helped not winning the SB since the story was recently brought up by Harbaugh 5 and half years later after the incident. Again you are attacking me when I am talking about general population speculation. Take it up with everyone else that the Pats have won more games since 07 or that winning a SB is difficult. The speculation is open, even by opposing coaches, and you know one of the main reasons is that the Patriots haven't won a SB since then. You can argue anyway you want, but you and I know that speculation would not exist or be very minimal if the Pats had won a SB that year or following years. I obviously think Weis leaving ,the defense not replacing aging veterans, and the lack of the running game and dependance on Brady, basically turning into the Colts with Peyton the last decade, led to their SB drought. Not because the cameras were taken away. But again when talking about general speculation, it will always be there if Brady and Bill don't win the Super Bowl again. Is it unfair, yeah 100%, but it all happened not because the Pats cheated, but the terrible way Goodell handled the mess. Obviously that doesn't absolve the Patriots from cheating, but it wouldn't hang around and be mentioned 5.5 years laters if A) the patriots won the super bowl B) Goodell handled the situation better C) Bill decided to be smart and not get caught or not cheat/bend the rules at all So let me ask you this questions, why do you think speculation still exists about Spygate and its effect? What has let it linger around so long? Wouldn't the Patriots lack of Super Bowls be a reason? If not, let me know why. Remember, not only opposing fans bring it up, but an opposing coach just drudged it up I went back in the thread to find out what I quoted that you quoted, and I never said the ONLY way to avoid speculation was to win a SB. I just listed it as one of the reasons for speculation. Do want me to list the others I have heard/read that make some logical sense?
