McD Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 No, I'm not a fan of the accused. Never have been. I have no attachment. As an objective observer, I see people complaining about Spygate as whining. I guess you're as blind to everything as the rest of us are then. I guess they (Pats/NFL) did a better job than I originally thought they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Now I can see why you're so upset. You don't deal in facts. How can stealing the Rams' defensive signals tell you what plays the Rams are running? Do you even know what rules the Patriots broke? I can only assume you don't. Tim...really now. You don't think the Pats knew the Rams offense and their signals? They were filming those too. Ok, so tell me to what it is I don't know about it all. I enjoy being enlightened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Tim, all I will ask about Spygate is this: if it was such a small deal as you and many other have said, then why did they even bother doing it? Hmm? PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Tim, all I will ask about Spygate is this: if it was such a small deal as you and many other have said, then why did they even bother doing it? Hmm? PTR +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Tim, all I will ask about Spygate is this: if it was such a small deal as you and many other have said, then why did they even bother doing it? Hmm? PTR that's been my question from the start (for all the apologists). They KNEW it was against the rules, and did it anyway. If what they did led to no advantage, why do it? If it does give an advantage, how much? 3 points a game? No? Then is it worth it? 7 yards? That could mean kicking a field goal or missing it Truth is, we don't know how much it was worth, because we really don't know the full extent the Pats* were cheating. But it was obviously worth enough for Belicheat to continue doing it, even though it was illegal. I suspect he continues to cheat, as getting caught cost him virtually nothing. BB strikes me as a classic recidivist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 BB strikes me as a classic recidivist. Holy hell! I told my wife (last night) I was going to use this word in a sentence today!! Too funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 that's been my question from the start (for all the apologists). They KNEW it was against the rules, and did it anyway. If what they did led to no advantage, why do it? If it does give an advantage, how much? 3 points a game? No? Then is it worth it? 7 yards? That could mean kicking a field goal or missing it Truth is, we don't know how much it was worth, because we really don't know the full extent the Pats* were cheating. But it was obviously worth enough for Belicheat to continue doing it, even though it was illegal. I suspect he continues to cheat, as getting caught cost him virtually nothing. BB strikes me as a classic recidivist. The point is we don't know exactly how MUCH the Pats* CHEATED because the EVIDENCE was DESTROYED. To me that means it was SO BAD Goodell did not want the PUBLIC to see it for fear of how much it would tarnish the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 The point is we don't know exactly how MUCH the Pats* CHEATED because the EVIDENCE was DESTROYED. To me that means it was SO BAD Goodell did not want the PUBLIC to see it for fear of how much it would tarnish the league. Another +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Tim, while I know we've had this discussion before, there were other unsubstantiated allegations (and admittedly those may be the key words here) against the Pats, as detailed here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/sports/f...ttee&st=cse And elsewhere. The part of this article that I like is the fact that the reporter got other NFL folks to say that the impression was that the Pats were guilty of "living on the edge" (or over it) more than anyone else: "They were the only team, really,” the executive said. “Clearly, they were the team mentioned far more than anybody else.” I recall seeing similar articles on SI.com around the combine that year (King or Z)--people who told them behind closed doors and without attribution for fear of retribution that they thought the Pats were cheaters basically and that they were actually pretty angry about it. Again, you may make something of the fact that folks chose not to speak out publicly, but they may have a legit fear of retribution in the case of a League like the NFL that seemed to want to get everyone in lockstep on an issue affecting the League's perceived integrity. In addition, I also wonder if you ever saw the HBO special on Matt Walsh. In that one they directly quote an unnamed "offensive star" (HBO's words) on those early Pats teams who said, "of course it helped immensely--we knew what was coming". How do you discount that? I watched it three times to make sure that they were directly quoting an actual player and that is what it certainly sounded like to me. To this day, I can't believe that more was not made of that fact and the substance of this player's quote..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Cold Bruschi Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Easy to do when you know what play the other team is going to run..... How would they know that if they were stealing defensive signals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Cold Bruschi Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Tim...really now. You don't think the Pats knew the Rams offense and their signals? They were filming those too. Ok, so tell me to what it is I don't know about it all. I enjoy being enlightened. You mean the signals that they say through the radio? are you talking about lip reading? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGraham Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Tim...really now. You don't think the Pats knew the Rams offense and their signals? They were filming those too. Ok, so tell me to what it is I don't know about it all. I enjoy being enlightened. I enjoy a good debate, but when you introduce stuff like this I can't help but feel like I've wasted my time here. No, I don't think knew what plays the Rams were running. Why? Because teams don't use hand signals anymore except in the case of an emergency. Plays are called in directly to the quarterback through headsets. I'm sure you've heard of this technology. Furthermore, many teams use wristbands. The offensive coordinator doesn't even call in the name of the play. He calls in a number. The quarterback looks on his wristband for the corresponding play. As Jay Fielder (one of the supposed aggrieved opponents) explained to me when I did a story on this for the Palm Beach Post, there's no way for a defense to know what you're calling. He added that the wristbands are changed at halftime (sometimes every quarter) to prevent teams from lipreading a number from the offensive coordinator and then assigning it to a play (in the rare case that number is called again). From my story ... “Everyone loves to get an advantage,” Fiedler said. “We were looking to steal their signals as well. There were times in games when we knew certain defensive calls from what we able to gather during the game or our scouts’ eyesight.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 You mean the signals that they say through the radio? are you talking about lip reading? Just like I asked Tim....do you honestly think they were stealing only one set of signals, or they were only videoing one side of the ball? Please now...let's not be too naive. Read the article MattM posted above in his post...the Pats were targeted for many, many infractions and I bet we'll learn about them all about as soon as we learn who shot Kennedy. I give Belicheat much cred though for working this angle to his advantage, even though I dislike him imensely because of his "holier than thou" personality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 I enjoy a good debate, but when you introduce stuff like this I can't help but feel like I've wasted my time here. No, I don't think knew what plays the Rams were running. Why? Because teams don't have use hand signals anymore except in the case of an emergency. Plays are called in directly to the quarterback through headsets. I'm sure you've heard of this technology. Furthermore, many teams use wristbands. The offensive coordinator doesn't even call in the name of the play. He calls in a number. The quarterback looks on his wristband for the corresponding play. As Jay Fielder (one of the supposed aggrieved opponents) explained to me when I did a story on this for the Palm Beach Post, there's no way for a defense to know what you're calling. He added that the wristbands are changed at halftime (sometimes every quarter) to prevent teams from lipreading a number from the offensive coordinator and then assigning it to a play (in the rare case that number is called again). From my story ... “Everyone loves to get an advantage,” Fiedler said. “We were looking to steal their signals as well. There were times in games when we knew certain defensive calls from what we able to gather during the game or our scouts’ eyesight.” Really Tim...there's not a whole lot of debate here...there's belief and there's not belief. I agree that many plays are changed at the lines...I'll give you that for sure, but if you read any of the article that MattM posted, you'll read that the Pats committed the vast majority of the "new technology" infractions as well. I mean when you rewrite an entire rulebook because of one teams continuous cheating, er...I mean borderline integrity infractions, then there must be a lot more to it than smoke. Seriously though, I'd love to know the whole truth on the matter, and the NFL did nothing to dispell any belief that the Pats infractions weren't extremely serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGraham Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Tim, while I know we've had this discussion before, there were other unsubstantiated allegations (and admittedly those may be the key words here) against the Pats, as detailed here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/sports/f...ttee&st=cse And elsewhere. The part of this article that I like is the fact that the reporter got other NFL folks to say that the impression was that the Pats were guilty of "living on the edge" (or over it) more than anyone else: "They were the only team, really,” the executive said. “Clearly, they were the team mentioned far more than anybody else.” I recall seeing similar articles on SI.com around the combine that year (King or Z)--people who told them behind closed doors and without attribution for fear of retribution that they thought the Pats were cheaters basically and that they were actually pretty angry about it. Again, you may make something of the fact that folks chose not to speak out publicly, but they may have a legit fear of retribution in the case of a League like the NFL that seemed to want to get everyone in lockstep on an issue affecting the League's perceived integrity. In addition, I also wonder if you ever saw the HBO special on Matt Walsh. In that one they directly quote an unnamed "offensive star" (HBO's words) on those early Pats teams who said, "of course it helped immensely--we knew what was coming". How do you discount that? I watched it three times to make sure that they were directly quoting an actual player and that is what it certainly sounded like to me. To this day, I can't believe that more was not made of that fact and the substance of this player's quote..... I did see that report, but one unnamed source can't outweigh all of the public comments that have been made from opposing coaches and players -- the people who should be most upset about the illegal videotaping. If it were only Patriots supporters saying it was no big deal, then I would remain skeptical. But the fact remains, fans are more outraged than the people who allegedly got screwed -- because they don't think they got screwed. I'm not discounting what that unnamed source said, but when I include it in all the analysis that's been brought forth and the personal interviews I've conducted, it doesn't stack up. If there were a lot of players, coaches, and educated/experiences analysts who would come forth and contend it made a difference, I would be prone to change my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 I did see that report, but one unnamed source can't outweigh all of the public comments that have been made from opposing coaches and players -- the people who should be most upset about the illegal videotaping. If it were only Patriots supporters saying it was no big deal, then I would remain skeptical. But the fact remains, fans are more outraged than the people who allegedly got screwed -- because they don't think they got screwed. I'm not discounting what that unnamed source said, but when I include it in all the analysis that's been brought forth and the personal interviews I've conducted, it doesn't stack up. If there were a lot of players, coaches, and educated/experiences analysts who would come forth and contend it made a difference, I would be prone to change my mind. I hear you Tim, but again I think that the NFL (read BIG BUSINESS) wants nothing to do with anything that might spoil the sports image. I work for the Gov't...let me tell you there are TONS of things that people are "not in the know" about or lied to because its in the best interest of the Gov't and what the people don't know won't hurt them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 I did see that report, but one unnamed source can't outweigh all of the public comments that have been made from opposing coaches and players -- the people who should be most upset about the illegal videotaping. If it were only Patriots supporters saying it was no big deal, then I would remain skeptical. But the fact remains, fans are more outraged than the people who allegedly got screwed -- because they don't think they got screwed. I'm not discounting what that unnamed source said, but when I include it in all the analysis that's been brought forth and the personal interviews I've conducted, it doesn't stack up. If there were a lot of players, coaches, and educated/experiences analysts who would come forth and contend it made a difference, I would be prone to change my mind. I'm pretty sure you're supposed to only believe what you want to believe. Then search out some form of "source" to back up that opinion. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGraham Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Tim, all I will ask about Spygate is this: if it was such a small deal as you and many other have said, then why did they even bother doing it? Hmm? PTR The same reason other teams did it. Just in case. It's all about leaving no stone unturned. Why do the Bills hold open tryouts every year when it never results in a worthy player? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGraham Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Just like I asked Tim....do you honestly think they were stealing only one set of signals, or they were only videoing one side of the ball? Please now...let's not be too naive. Read the article MattM posted above in his post...the Pats were targeted for many, many infractions and I bet we'll learn about them all about as soon as we learn who shot Kennedy. I give Belicheat much cred though for working this angle to his advantage, even though I dislike him imensely because of his "holier than thou" personality. "I can't look back on it and say we lost the game because they taped our (offensive) coaches," Fiedler said. "Unless they had our wristbands and play chart for that particular game, there's no way they would have known what our plays were." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 I did see that report, but one unnamed source can't outweigh all of the public comments that have been made from opposing coaches and players -- the people who should be most upset about the illegal videotaping. If it were only Patriots supporters saying it was no big deal, then I would remain skeptical. But the fact remains, fans are more outraged than the people who allegedly got screwed -- because they don't think they got screwed. I'm not discounting what that unnamed source said, but when I include it in all the analysis that's been brought forth and the personal interviews I've conducted, it doesn't stack up. If there were a lot of players, coaches, and educated/experiences analysts who would come forth and contend it made a difference, I would be prone to change my mind. What about Martz and Warner--I seem to recall the two of them coming down pretty hard on the Pats over this, or have they all kissed and made up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts