Pep taking a subtle shot at Patriots about their cheating scandal?

[markabrown96]

He's playing mind games with them

[unvrsty07]

I didn't read spygate into that at all. I think he was more giving credit to their preparation and football acumen.

 

 I agree with this. That's the way I read it also.

[MaoBerry]

Yep the Patriots cheated. Is no one ever allowed to bring it up again?

 If the NFL had a pair they would strip the Pats of those championships. In my eyes they have 0. Unfortunate for Brady and the rest of the players.

i agree completely.

[LockeDown]

Taking away the Pats rings is one step below chess pie. If it was between the Colts winning the Super Bowl this year and the Pats having their things taken away, I would still be undecided.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

I didn't read spygate into that at all. I think he was more giving credit to their preparation and football acumen.

 

Yeah, that's kind of what I thought. I felt like BSPN totally took it out of context, imagine that. I think he meant that over the course of a 60 minute ball game, that their staff will eventually pick up on signals and tendencies, so it's wise to keep things fresh and change things up a bit.

[southwest1]

a non story

Exactly, for the love of God, I wish the world would just let this story die. SW1 will even supply the funeral bagpipes. Look, I understand that some NFL fans need this story of SpyGate to live on forever as a means to de-legitimize the Patriots 3 ring SB Dynasty. But, at the end of the day anybody who keeps resurrecting a dead story ends up looking petty & small.

 

I want INDY to focus on the here & now not ancient history. It's 2014 not 2007/2008. Who gives a crap? I don't. Focus on this weekend's results, control what you can control, & move on to something relevant & current please. Thank you. The best NFL franchises cut the albatross from around their neck, let manufactured curses die, & get down to business beating a worthy foe like NE that will require our complete concentration to defeat. That is the only thing SW1 gives a darn about period. 

[GoColts8818]

Wasn't so subtle.  I'd say it was a flat out shot. 

[GoColts8818]

Yep the Patriots cheated. Is no one ever allowed to bring it up again?

 If the NFL had a pair they would strip the Pats of those championships. In my eyes they have 0. Unfortunate for Brady and the rest of the players.

This isn't going to be popular with anyone but I don't think the titles should have been stripped but at the sametime rather Pats fans like it or not just because they were punished for it doesn't people forgot it happened and of course they are going to bring it up. 

[southwest1]

I don't know if Pep Hamilton's comment was blunt or subtle, but why provide bulletin board material to your adversary? It's never a good idea & if that is a strategy to motivate INDY than we have some serious problems. This is the divisional round of the Playoffs for a continued march toward greatness in the pantheon of NFL immortality. That's not sufficient enough motivation for us really? 

 

Look, if the Colts execute & don't make bone headed mistakes, we can hang with anybody. Facts are facts. 

[Warhorse]

If there were fines or repercussions....then the video material was significant. No other way to see that.

[Jules]

meh.......

[braveheartcolt]

The whole thing is old news. If I were BB, I'd have changed the logo on the helmet to include an * next to the flying elvis.

[dynasty13]

You are grasping at straws here.

 

Of course we don't know what's on the tapes, but like I said if its "no big deal" as everyone makes it out to be, why not release the tapes to the public? If there's nothing to hide, why destroy it?

 

The punishment for the crime is irrelevant to what the crime was itself.

 

And the Patriots were punished for the action, not the result. 

 

They were fined because they broke a rule after being reminded about it, they weren't fined because it gave them an advantage. That's the point that many forget when they try to make the case 'well if it wasn't a big deal, why were they punished?'

 

I always found it odd that people like to make the case 'we don't know what else was on those tapes'....yet they then go on say that it 'obviously' gave the Patriots enough of an advantage to win three Superbowls and they should be stripped. The simple comment of 'we don't know what was on those tapes' should be used equally when making a case for either side. 

 

"We don't know.' 

 

That makes neither side of the argument more legitimate than the other.

[dynasty13]

Serious question: Do either of you dismiss the possible Spygate connection because you dismiss the seriousness/impact of Spygate, or do you just not think Hamilton was making a nod toward it at all?

 

I'm not dismissing the possible Spygate connection, I just think it's not a big deal that he said it regardless. 

[amfootball]

Serious question: Do either of you dismiss the possible Spygate connection because you dismiss the seriousness/impact of Spygate, or do you just not think Hamilton was making a nod toward it at all?

Both. But more that his comment was no big deal.

[Restored]

And the Patriots were punished for the action, not the result.

They were fined because they broke a rule after being reminded about it, they weren't fined because it gave them an advantage. That's the point that many forget when they try to make the case 'well if it wasn't a big deal, why were they punished?'

I always found it odd that people like to make the case 'we don't know what else was on those tapes'....yet they then go on say that it 'obviously' gave the Patriots enough of an advantage to win three Superbowls and they should be stripped. The simple comment of 'we don't know what was on those tapes' should be used equally when making a case for either side.

"We don't know.'

That makes neither side of the argument more legitimate than the other.

LOL are you really implying that the league already knew about the tapes and just "decided" to punish the Pats because someone brought it up? Don't be so naive here.

Part of the punishment WAS because it gave them an unfair advantage, which is why it was such a big deal. Look, I get it. You are a Patriots fan, if I was in your shoes I'd try to downplay it every chance I get. It's not pretty and regardless of your opinion, it does tarnish those Super Bowls.

Like I said, if it wasn't a big deal and there was nothing there, why not release the tapes for all to see? If its just coaches "doing the YMCA" on the sidelines, show us.

[amfootball]

LOL are you really implying that the league already knew about the tapes and just "decided" to punish the Pats because someone brought it up? Don't be so naive here.

Part of the punishment WAS because it gave them an unfair advantage, which is why it was such a big deal. Look, I get it. You are a Patriots fan, if I was in your shoes I'd try to downplay it every chance I get. It's not pretty and regardless of your opinion, it does tarnish those Super Bowls.

Like I said, if it wasn't a big deal and there was nothing there, why not release the tapes for all to see? If its just coaches "doing the YMCA" on the sidelines, show us.

You must have missed the airing of Matt Walsh's (Pats video man) tapes that were showed for a full day on ESPN when he came forward to the league. The video showed the Pats taping the scoreboard for down and distance, the play itself, and then pan over to the DC. That was it play after play after play. Pretty boring actually.

[GoPats]

 

I think there could of been lots more than what was revealed on just the Rams walkthrough tape. Football is a game of inches and timing. Every team is talented and has players capable of making plays at any time. And if those players know where an offense is going or doing based on a signal they picked up ILLEGALLY, they can key off on the play and make even the best of offenses look silly, no matter if they are more or less talented. If I know your plays, I have a better chance of stopping you.

 

You have to look at the sports world as a whole with Goodell destroying the tapes. The NFL has a image to maintain. It is now the only sport in America that really hasn't be marred by some sort of cheating or fixing scandal. (Soccer has its ref fixing scandal of over 600 matches worldwide, MLB has its steroid issues with past and present players [HOFers to boot] , NBA had ref fixing and betting scandals). Had the sporting world gotten to see ALL of the footage, they may have seen a lot more than just walkthroughs, possibly prompting the general public to consider the NFL to be in the same category as its fellow MLB and NBA sport leagues. This would of put a HUGE damper on the league's image as other scandals have done to other sports. But, Goodell destroyed the tapes, sparring not only the Patriots but the NFL as well.

 

Let me ask you this, if there wasn't anything to see other than "coaches doing the YMCA" as you put it, why not show us ALL of it? There's nothing to lose right? Why the HUGE fine of $500,000 and draft picks?

 

Well first of all, there was no Rams walk-through tape. And I'm sorry if this comes off wrong, but if you lead with that, it makes me question what you actually know, factually, about the whole situation. It's like "password"... the story starts in one place, is passed on, and morphs into something it's not. The report on that, which ran in the Boston Herald, was followed by a front-page retraction stating that there were erroneous sources. Newspapers don't run front-page retractions unless they're about to get sued.

 

I know what you're saying about the NFL and its image. You're right on that, 100%. 

 

If seeing hours of coaches gesticulating on the sidelines of football games is what you want, I guess there's not a whole lot that I can say. Opposing fans who still cling to Spygate basically want it to be as bad as it can be, and in fairness, Patriots fans want the opposite. As usual, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. 

 

Thanks for the up-and-up discussion though, usually these things get uglier fast, lol... I respect your opinion. 

[dynasty13]

LOL are you really implying that the league already knew about the tapes and just "decided" to punish the Pats because someone brought it up? Don't be so naive here.

Part of the punishment WAS because it gave them an unfair advantage, which is why it was such a big deal. Look, I get it. You are a Patriots fan, if I was in your shoes I'd try to downplay it every chance I get. It's not pretty and regardless of your opinion, it does tarnish those Super Bowls.

Like I said, if it wasn't a big deal and there was nothing there, why not release the tapes for all to see? If its just coaches "doing the YMCA" on the sidelines, show us.

 

Not at all what I'm implying. I'm saying that no one knows exactly what the Patriots used them for or how it affected the outcomes of games and therefor, THAT'S not what they were punished for. They were punished for the action itself of taping signals, and the punishment was no more or less severe because of what the outcomes were.

[GoPats]

Just to add...

 

The Patriots were punished. In addition to the team and personal fines, they were stripped of their 1st round pick in 2008. When you look at some of the guys drafted in the 20 or so picks after the one they forfeited, some names really jump out at you. How do you think guys like Kenny Phillips, Brandon Flowers, Matt Forte, DeSean Jackson, and Ray Rice would look in a Patriots' uniform? 

 

Kind of surprising how people dismiss that. They lost the potential to add an impact player. Along a boatload of BB's cash, lol...

[Restored]

Well first of all, there was no Rams walk-through tape. And I'm sorry if this comes off wrong, but if you lead with that, it makes me question what you actually know, factually, about the whole situation. It's like "password"... the story starts in one place, is passed on, and morphs into something it's not. The report on that, which ran in the Boston Herald, was followed by a front-page retraction stating that there were erroneous sources. Newspapers don't run front-page retractions unless they're about to get sued.

I know what you're saying about the NFL and its image. You're right on that, 100%.

If seeing hours of coaches gesticulating on the sidelines of football games is what you want, I guess there's not a whole lot that I can say. Opposing fans who still cling to Spygate basically want it to be as bad as it can be, and in fairness, Patriots fans want the opposite. As usual, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Thanks for the up-and-up discussion though, usually these things get uglier fast, lol... I respect your opinion.

Yeah there was no Rams walk through, my mistake. But I think it needs to be reminded just how close these players in the NFL are in terms of talent. It's not just a cliche' that every coach uses.

With that stated, any advantage teams can get it vital. Furthermore, being able to identify what plays are when they are called gives a HUGE advantage. As someone who has played and coached (not at the NFL level but high school and some college), if we knew what an opponents teams calls were, we'd be foaming at the mouth each and every play. To simplify, it's like when someone is playing Madden against a friend. If that friend is screen watching you and sees your play you called, he can call a defense that is most suitable to stop it. Now you may out execute your friend on the play itself but if you don't, it generally ends up being stopped because the defense called was a near perfect call for the play.

I'm not saying you didn't know this, but in the game itself, knowing an opponents calls and plays can give a team a pretty sizable advantage. Look at the Bucs and Raiders Super Bowl in 2002. Gruden acknowledges that he still knew a lot of the Raiders calls and signals (legally of course) and they end up blowing out the Raiders and frustrating Rich Gannon all game.

It's a big advantage.

[Restored]

You must have missed the airing of Matt Walsh's (Pats video man) tapes that were showed for a full day on ESPN when he came forward to the league. The video showed the Pats taping the scoreboard for down and distance, the play itself, and then pan over to the DC. That was it play after play after play. Pretty boring actually.

If you don't understand football, I could see how it would be pretty boring.

[BrentMc11]

I think my final answer on this is.....

 

When will coaches, players, waterboys, GMs, and Twitter Tweet Owners just shut the 'heck' up and show  up on game day and kick 'butt?' (butt) 

 

That is MY FINAL ANSWER!

 

 

No this is not Pep!!  

[amfootball]

If you don't understand football, I could see how it would be pretty boring.

Good grief. What do you think is on them? The Pats admitted to taping signals and  handed them over willingly.

[amfootball]

I think my final answer on this is.....

 

When will coaches, players, waterboys, GMs, and Twitter Tweet Owners just shut the 'heck' up and show  up on game day and kick 'butt?' (butt) 

 

That is MY FINAL ANSWER!

 

That is why Bill does not let his assistants talk to the media. One voice is best.

[Yehoodi]

LOL are you really implying that the league already knew about the tapes and just "decided" to punish the Pats because someone brought it up? Don't be so naive here.

Part of the punishment WAS because it gave them an unfair advantage, which is why it was such a big deal. Look, I get it. You are a Patriots fan, if I was in your shoes I'd try to downplay it every chance I get. It's not pretty and regardless of your opinion, it does tarnish those Super Bowls.

Like I said, if it wasn't a big deal and there was nothing there, why not release the tapes for all to see? If its just coaches "doing the YMCA" on the sidelines, show us.

 

I think you are the one that is getting your fanhold in the way of things . . .

 

the punishment was for act of taping not whether or not it gain an advantage in the eyes of the NFL . . . and Goodell himself said that it was not used for the game it was taped in  . . .

 

furthermore, there were only 6 or so tapes and Goodell stated what was on those tapes, coaches . . . in addition BB stated that he had been taping even since he got to NE in 2000 and that he used them for off season evaluation of his team and coaching staff . . . given the fact that he has been taping since 2000 and only had 6 or so tapes in Sept. 2007 is a strong indication that the tapes were not that important to BB beyond his stated usage . . . indeed had he been using the tapes to track coaches and therr signals he would keep an archive of them and create a dossier on the coaches that he could use for future reference, but sadly the facts to not support this as there are only 6 tapes . . . 

 

as for disclosing the evidence to the media, what purpose does that serve??  I don't get this . . . it is not like he stated the tapes were clean and we are not going to act . . . the bottom line once he made an adjudication that the tapes had something he felt violated the rules, that is it, fact found, rule violated, nothing more needs to be said . . . fine assessed . . .

 

Do they release transcripts of meanings with players that are being fined for conduct against the rules? 

Did they release and of the transcripts, meeting, affidavits of the stuff with bountygate?

Whenever the NFl looks into covert actions against teams (like one team accuses another of tapering) do they release there findings, facts, affidavits, and transcripts of meeting with the players, team officials and such who are involved?

 

Of coarse they don't and nor sure they, even though some of the above involves activity with is detrimental fair play . . . but they don't and no one, including you I venture, care about . . . and if one wants to be consistent and not where his fan hood on his sleeve, he would feel the same . . .  

 

and lets not forget the pumping the noise into the stadium at the RCA dome when the colts where accused of pumping in crowd noise in order to gain an advantage against NFL rules . . . the NFL exonerated them and merely said that a CBS official indicated that it was a problem with their truck . . .well why did not the NFL release the name of the CBS official or transcripts of the conversation . . . we where just merely left with the conclusion by the NFL . . . with such a thing are we entitled seeing everything the NFL knew?   for me the answer is no . . . and my guess is your answer is also . . . but if we want to be consistent we need to treat all interactions with the NFL in the same way, and if the NFL makes an adjudication with respect to a act that might be deemed to gain an unfair advantage, and we accept and we don't ask for more then we should do the same with all decision . . .and of coarse if we are of the opposite opinion, that we want to see everything notwithstanding the NFL's decision, we need to request it of all cases, not just a selected few . ..

[Restored]

Not at all what I'm implying. I'm saying that no one knows exactly what the Patriots used them for or how it affected the outcomes of games and therefor, THAT'S not what they were punished for. They were punished for the action itself of taping signals, and the punishment was no more or less severe because of what the outcomes were.

Now lets use some common sense here. Did the Patriots tape these plays and signals so that they could sit back and laugh during game planning sessions during the week? No. They did it so they could get the signals and get a leg up on what plays and audibles were being called. Otherwise, what's the point of taping? Coaches in the NFL are paid to help their players be in the best possible position they can to win. Some of them just go over the top.

Thanks for the clarification. What my point was is that it doesn't matter if they got fined 1 or 10 draft picks, it doesn't change the violation itself. Which to me is a lot more severe than most casual fans understand, Patriots fans or not.

[Restored]

Good grief. What do you think is on them? The Pats admitted to taping signals and handed them over willingly.

Not my point. We know what was on them. my point was how big of an advantage having those signals were.

[amfootball]

Not my point. We know what was on them. my point was how big of an advantage having those signals were.

Don't think we will ever know for sure. But the Pats have a higher win percentage post spygate than before, average more points per game and went to two SBs losing both in the final minutes and have been to four AFCGG as well. As they say, the proof is in the pudding. Had the Pats success fallen off the map post-spygate then I think you would have to question the advantage but honestly there is nothing to suggest that it was more than minimal if you go on what the team has done since they were penalized.

[BrentMc11]

That is why Bill does not let his assistants talk to the media. One voice is best.

Call me Old School, but I prefer the one voice mentality.  It is difficult, however in such a social media circus to maintain that so-called silence.  The Man in the gray hoodie does do the best at.  Unlike Miami???  He likes to remain "Incognito."  

[Superman]

I seriously can't believe that we're here re-litigating Spygate, again, six years later.

[Restored]

Don't think we will ever know for sure. But the Pats have a higher win percentage post spygate than before, average more points per game and went to two SBs losing both in the final minutes and have been to four AFCGG as well. As they say, the proof is in the pudding. Had the Pats success fallen off the map post-spygate then I think you would have to question the advantage but honestly there is nothing to suggest that it was more than minimal if you go on what the team has done since they were penalized.

Proof in the pudding? How about you look at the Patriots record post-Spygate. For one who LOVES to talk about the Patriots and playoff wins and not stats, you sure are putting up a lot of stats.

Patriots playoff record since Spygate: 5-5

[amfootball]

Proof in the pudding? How about you look at the Patriots record post-Spygate. For one who LOVES to talk about the Patriots and playoff wins and not stats, you sure are putting up a lot of stats.

Patriots playoff record since Spygate: 5-5

I am not sure what that really proves. I think it is far harder to keep winning at the clip the Pats have been doing for the last 13 years with 11 divisional titles and securing a bye 9 times. They did go perfect 10-0 which would have been hard to duplicate even if they were never caught videotaping and continued to tape signals. Still though behind the 7-7 since their last SB is 4 AFCCG appearances and 2 SB appearances with losses by 3 points and 4 points in those SBs.

 

If you feel their success is most attributable to spygate then I doubt there would be much I could say to dissuade you and I really don't care to be honest. But like I said had their winning dropped off, I would have put more stock in spygate. At this point, I think it is probably the most overblown sports story in NFL history. JMO.

[GoPats]

Yeah there was no Rams walk through, my mistake. But I think it needs to be reminded just how close these players in the NFL are in terms of talent. It's not just a cliche' that every coach uses.

With that stated, any advantage teams can get it vital. Furthermore, being able to identify what plays are when they are called gives a HUGE advantage. As someone who has played and coached (not at the NFL level but high school and some college), if we knew what an opponents teams calls were, we'd be foaming at the mouth each and every play. To simplify, it's like when someone is playing Madden against a friend. If that friend is screen watching you and sees your play you called, he can call a defense that is most suitable to stop it. Now you may out execute your friend on the play itself but if you don't, it generally ends up being stopped because the defense called was a near perfect call for the play.

I'm not saying you didn't know this, but in the game itself, knowing an opponents calls and plays can give a team a pretty sizable advantage. Look at the Bucs and Raiders Super Bowl in 2002. Gruden acknowledges that he still knew a lot of the Raiders calls and signals (legally of course) and they end up blowing out the Raiders and frustrating Rich Gannon all game.

It's a big advantage.

 

I hear you... I'm sure there was some kind of advantage to it, otherwise Belichick would not have wasted time on it. 

 

Unfortunately neither BB nor the league commented on it too extensively. I always thought that Belichick's "nothing more to add" comments worked against him. Maybe if he'd answered some more questions at the time, speculation wouldn't be as open as it is. And maybe if he writes another book someday, he'll delve in more deeply.

 

FWIW, Kraft once relayed a story where he asked Belichick how much it helped him. After the coach replied, "Not very much," Kraft said to him, "Then you're a *," lol...

 

Obviously I would rather have the team I root for be above reproach, but they messed up, they gave people the opportunity to doubt them and tear them down, so... these are self-inflicted wounds.

 

Thanks again for the good, civil discussion. 

[GoPats]

I seriously can't believe that we're here re-litigating Spygate, again, six years later.

 

Same here, lol... 

 

Patriots playoff record since Spygate: 5-5

 

In all honesty, that is probably nothing more than coincidence though. Brady won his first 10 playoff games as a starter... that will probably never happen again in the NFL. Even most top teams hover around .500 in the playoffs. 

 

They won three Super Bowls by the thinnest of margins, and lost two by the thinnest of margins. Change a play here or there and they could be 0-5, and just as easily 5-0.

[HGRekks]

Here's what I think about Spygate:

 

 

...

[southwest1]

Just to add...

 

The Patriots were punished. In addition to the team and personal fines, they were stripped of their 1st round pick in 2008. When you look at some of the guys drafted in the 20 or so picks after the one they forfeited, some names really jump out at you. How do you think guys like Kenny Phillips, Brandon Flowers, Matt Forte, DeSean Jackson, and Ray Rice would look in a Patriots' uniform? 

 

Kind of surprising how people dismiss that. They lost the potential to add an impact player. Along a boatload of BB's cash, lol...

That is an excellent point GoPats concerning drafting 1 of those marquee players you mentioned above in 2008. Thanks for educating me/reminding me of that crucial fact. I appreciate it. 

[Yehoodi]

I seriously can't believe that we're here re-litigating Spygate, again, six years later.

 

sry, I got carried away . . .

 

oh, do I get any points for keeping my post to less than a one and half monitors screen size . . .

[southwest1]

I seriously can't believe that we're here re-litigating Spygate, again, six years later.

Precisely, it is time to discard SpyGate permanently now. Will it help the Colts or Patriots emerge victorious this weekend at all? Nope.

 

Plus, NE has appeared in 2 SBs since the scandal broke. Clearly, NE knows what the hades they are doing as a franchise & it's an insult to that team to keep bringing up a story that doesn't reveal the key to their Championship Pedigree at all. JMO. 

[Valpo2004]

you can give the opposing team your entire playbook and each play tell them exactly what you are going to run and who exactly you are  giving the ball to....in the end it don't matter because if your play is executed right you are going to get positive results. 

 

That's not true at all.

 

If I know for a fact that you are giving the ball to your RB I'll just put 11 men in the box and your RB won't be going very far.

 

If I know for a fact what routes your receivers are going to run my DB's could jump every route every single time.

 

The defense reacts to the offense and if the defense always knows what the offense is going to do they are going to stop them 90% of the time. 

 

You can't out execute the other team knowing what play you are running.  That's why they have things like play action passes where another action is faked to try to trick members of the defense as to what is actually happening.