Eagles's Cary Williams: Patriots are 'cheaters'

[cdgacoltsfan]

How are people still  trying to claim the Pats didn't cheat???  It is not in question.  They DID cheat.  There are rules that other teams followed that the Patriots did not.  The Pats gained advantage from this.  Therefore, they cheated.  This is all FACT.

 

 

My opinion is that the Patriots should have been stripped of any titles, banners, trophies, and records from that period of time.  Or put an * next to it like Barry Bonds home run record.  

They were found guilty and lost draft pics and fined. There is more to the story than reported and the cheating was probably much worse than what the public was told but we will never know because for some reason Roger Goodell had the evidence destroyed rather quickly, ( Im thinking a Kraft/Goodell coverup)

[OffensivelyPC]

Not going to say anything specifically on this story, but there have been a lot of players recently saying that the Patriots are "cheaters"... quite peculiar to say the least.

And it's only the patriots that these stories always come up.  Or maybe a better way to say ti is, of all the players who say this stuff about other teams, the number of times its' about the Patriots far exceeds the number of times it's said abotu any other team by a big margin.  I don't really care, they've just been a good team for hte past 10 years.  They had a good run starting at the turn of the millenium under similar circumstances as the Seahawks may be doing starting with this most recent SB.  That's about all there really is to say.  Don't really care to get into the arguments over spygate/cheating for the umpteen time.  No one can prove definitively either way.

[ViriLudant]

Link? Did they also tape practices?

Why do you ask? The Patriots never did.

The level of misunderstanding by Colt fans on this topic is hilarious. Always has been.

As for Mudd, that's been known for years.

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/602173-philadelphia-eagles-coaches-an-in-depth-look-at-howard-mudd

[Kyle]

Why do you ask? The Patriots never did.

The level of misunderstanding by Colt fans on this topic is hilarious. Always has been.

As for Mudd, that's been known for years.

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/602173-philadelphia-eagles-coaches-an-in-depth-look-at-howard-mudd

Yep, he was good at it so he didn't have to break the rules.  All you are doing is proving that it could somewhat be done WITHOUT CHEATING.

 

If guys like Howard Mudd were stealing signals without breaking the rules..... why couldn't the Pats do it that way??

[lollygagger8]

The issue with the Pats was the location of the video equipment on the sideline not the taping of the signals. The rule stated the signals could be taped as long as the footage was not used in game which it wasn't. The memo that was sent in 2006 to ALL 32 teams because the league believed it to be a league-wide problem was that the video equipment could not long be on the sidelines. Bill admitted that he thought he could still tape as long as the footage was not being used in game. He was wrong and therefore penalized. There was no cheating. It was a rule violation and one that many teams prior to the Pats, i.e. the cowboys under Johnson, had done previously.

 

Violating the rules is the same as cheating.  

[amfootball]

 

Violating the rules is the same as cheating.  

 

No its not. Wearing your socks too high is a rule violation with a fine, is that cheating?

[cdgacoltsfan]

No its not. Wearing your socks too high is a rule violation with a fine, is that cheating?

Violating the rules to gain a competitive advantage is cheating.

[amfootball]

Violating the rules to gain a competitive advantage is cheating.

Except the Pats did it in full view of everyone for years. They made the mistake of misinterpreting the rule change that said the video could not be on the sideline as long as the footage was not used in game. There was nothing covert about their intentions just ignorance of the new rule sent to all 32 teams and perhaps some arrogance as well and they paid the penalty.

[lollygagger8]

Violating the rules to gain a competitive advantage is cheating.

 

Worded much better, thanks. 

[lollygagger8]

No its not. Wearing your socks too high is a rule violation with a fine, is that cheating?

 

[dynasty13]

How are people still  trying to claim the Pats didn't cheat???  It is not in question.  They DID cheat.  There are rules that other teams followed that the Patriots did not.  The Pats gained advantage from this.  Therefore, they cheated.  This is all FACT.

 

 

My opinion is that the Patriots should have been stripped of any titles, banners, trophies, and records from that period of time.  Or put an * next to it like Barry Bonds home run record.  

 

The Patriots were punished for the ACTION, not the RESULT. With all the audio and video that is available to coaches and teams to watch and analyze, the ACTION that they were punished for was simply the location of the camera. You are claiming that the advantage gained resulted in their success...the titles, banners, trophies, and records...but in reality you are just speculating. And I'm sorry to tell you, but speculation is not the same as proof. 

[ViriLudant]

Yep, he was good at it so he didn't have to break the rules. All you are doing is proving that it could somewhat be done WITHOUT CHEATING.

If guys like Howard Mudd were stealing signals without breaking the rules..... why couldn't the Pats do it that way??

What's the difference between stealing signals with cameras versus watching them and writing them down?

What impact does that have?

I find it hilarious that you think that there's a major difference

[ViriLudant]

Violating the rules to gain a competitive advantage is cheating.

What competitive advantage was gained?

This is what NONE of you has explained

[JerodMayo51]

Violating the rules to gain a competitive advantage is cheating.

 

Is offensive holding cheating?

Is pass interfering a receiver because hes going to break free from your coverage cheating?

Is 12 men on the field cheating?

Is hitting a defenseless receiver cheating?

 

All are used to gain a competitive advantage.

 

 

Why is it ok for Howard Mudd to sit on the sidelines and decipher signals all game long (and actually use that knowledge IN A LIVE GAME) for an advantage perfectly ok, but a VHS tape that contains 3 hours of footage of the opposing teams sideline (which isn't illegal if done from the designated locations to film the sideline) that is archived and cannot even be used in the same game for an advantage such a travesty in your eyes?

Thats the best part..  explain to me how those VHS tapes helped them win the games they were playing against their opponent that day.  Explain how they got this huge advantage over someone like the Colts who had Howard Mudd doing the exact same thing, just in a different way?

 

I've never seen so much sour grapes in my life.  Also, please explain how the Patriots are still a top elite team and their offense has consistently been one of the most elite in the entire league since 2007 and defensive calls now go onto the field through a headset?

 

Please explain these things, since you have so much wisdom and insight into this that the rest of us peasants just can't quite grasp.

 

I'd love to hear your explanation lol

 

Haters gonna hate!

[JerodMayo51]

The Patriots were punished for the ACTION, not the RESULT. With all the audio and video that is available to coaches and teams to watch and analyze, the ACTION that they were punished for was simply the location of the camera. You are claiming that the advantage gained resulted in their success...the titles, banners, trophies, and records...but in reality you are just speculating. And I'm sorry to tell you, but speculation is not the same as proof. 

 

Bingo.

 

 

Howard Mudd had the exact same RESULTS, only he actually got to use it to his advantage in the actual game he was playing with his method.  The Patriots method was what the violation was, not the end result.

 

This is a key point that people who despise the Patriots choose to ignore because it sinks their entire argument.

 

People also don't seem to understand that when a team is on the road, by the time they get onto the plane to fly home they usually have a DVD of their opponents previous games, broken down play by play, formation by formation.

 

It really is hilarious

[IndyFan93]

Except the Pats did it in full view of everyone for years. They made the mistake of misinterpreting the rule change that said the video could not be on the sideline as long as the footage was not used in game. There was nothing covert about their intentions just ignorance of the new rule sent to all 32 teams and perhaps some arrogance as well and they paid the penalty.

 

If it was such a minor rule violation why were they punished so heavily for it? I don't know enough about the whole situation to say that you are wrong. I just don't understand why if it was something that every team was doing, and the only rule that was broken was the location of the camera, why it became such a huge scandal that resulted in a hefty fine and loss of draft picks. If what you say is true it sounds like a nonstory to me. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't get it.

[amfootball]

If it was such a minor rule violation why were they punished so heavily for it? I don't know enough about the whole situation to say that you are wrong. I just don't understand why if it was something that every team was doing, and the only rule that was broken was the location of the camera, why it became such a huge scandal that resulted in a hefty fine and loss of draft picks. If what you say is true it sounds like a nonstory to me. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't get it.

Because the memo to stop filming from the sideline came from the commissioner himself and was sent to all 32 teams in 2006. The Pats were still doing it at the start of 2007 when they got caught in week 1. I think the commish had to come down hard back then as he just become the commish and his mantra was cleaning up the league. He wanted to set a precedent that he is not to be messed with IMO.

[ViriLudant]

If it was such a minor rule violation why were they punished so heavily for it? I don't know enough about the whole situation to say that you are wrong. I just don't understand why if it was something that every team was doing, and the only rule that was broken was the location of the camera, why it became such a huge scandal that resulted in a hefty fine and loss of draft picks. If what you say is true it sounds like a nonstory to me. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't get it.

Because Goodell was relatively new as the commish, and Belichick ignored/ misinterpreted his memo.

He couldn't allow a coach to do that, not so early in his tenure. He had to set an example .

[The Old Crow]

Because the memo to stop filming from the sideline came from the commissioner himself and was sent to all 32 teams in 2006. The Pats were still doing it at the start of 2007 when they got caught in week 1. I think the commish had to come down hard back then as he just become the commish and his mantra was cleaning up the league. He wanted to set a precedent that he is not to be messed with IMO.

.

The fun never ends for the defenders of spy gate and the Baltimore Colts ! Like I said, we all have our areas of expertise ! Lol

[dynasty13]

If it was such a minor rule violation why were they punished so heavily for it? I don't know enough about the whole situation to say that you are wrong. I just don't understand why if it was something that every team was doing, and the only rule that was broken was the location of the camera, why it became such a huge scandal that resulted in a hefty fine and loss of draft picks. If what you say is true it sounds like a nonstory to me. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't get it.

In addition to what others have mentioned, the Patriots had two first round picks that year, which allowed Goodell to 'rule with an iron fist' by taking one away while still not crippling the team. I'm willing to bet he wouldn't have taken their first rounder if they didn't have a second one (like how the saints were 'only' docked 2nd rounders for Bountygate) because taking away first round picks would kill many teams. Goodell was able to make a statement and set a precedent of 'don't cross the boss' and did it without damaging the future of the franchise.

[Kyle]

Pats fans are getting ridiculous here.

 

I ask you one question.  If the Patriots were not gaining an advantage, why were they doing it?  You are just plain being a homer by arguing they gained nothing from it.

 

Not only do you claim they gained no advantage, but in the same thread you say it is the same as what Howard Mudd was doing and he was gaining a huge advantage.....   You can't argue both ways.

 

Did Howard Mudd have an advantage from what he was doing?  Yes.

Was it against the rules?  Not that I know of.  

 

Did the Pats gain an advantage from what they were doing? Yes. If you want to argue no, then please tell me why they were doing it 

Was it against the rules?  YES

 

Just accept it and move on.  You guys are embarrassing yourselves... 

[xXBOXADDICTx]

Pats fans are getting ridiculous here.

 

I ask you one question.  If the Patriots were not gaining an advantage, why were they doing it?  You are just plain being a homer by arguing they gained nothing from it.

 

Not only do you claim they gained no advantage, but in the same thread you say it is the same as what Howard Mudd was doing and he was gaining a huge advantage.....   You can't argue both ways.

 

Did Howard Mudd have an advantage from what he was doing?  Yes.

Was it against the rules?  Not that I know of.  

 

Did the Pats gain an advantage from what they were doing? Yes. If you want to argue no, then please tell me why they were doing it 

Was it against the rules?  YES

 

Just accept it and move on.  You guys are embarrassing yourselves... 

[ViriLudant]

Pats fans are getting ridiculous here.

 

I ask you one question.  If the Patriots were not gaining an advantage, why were they doing it?  You are just plain being a homer by arguing they gained nothing from it.

 

Not only do you claim they gained no advantage, but in the same thread you say it is the same as what Howard Mudd was doing and he was gaining a huge advantage.....   You can't argue both ways.

 

Did Howard Mudd have an advantage from what he was doing?  Yes.

Was it against the rules?  Not that I know of.  

 

Did the Pats gain an advantage from what they were doing? Yes. If you want to argue no, then please tell me why they were doing it 

Was it against the rules?  YES

 

Just accept it and move on.  You guys are embarrassing yourselves...

Howard Mudd used the info DURING the game. BB watched the video AFTER the game. Big difference.

If you knew anything about BB's upbringing, you'd never ask why he did it. His father was a coach at Navy when BB was a child, and his father taught him to break down film at the age of 4.

Btw, you keep forgetting this little fact: what BB did was only illegal based on the POSITION of the camera, not its content.

Haterz gotta, in this case, hate.

[xXBOXADDICTx]

Because Goodell was relatively new as the commish, and Belichick ignored/ misinterpreted his memo.

He couldn't allow a coach to do that, not so early in his tenure. He had to set an example .

[Shane Bond]

Been reading some responses and here is what I gather.

Eventhough, it's "just a misinterpretation" of the rule, Commish just to wield his power gave the maximum fine allowed of 500k to a person ( highest fine in NFL history ) 250k to the team and a 1st round draft pick.

All this he did because he can?. That makes a lot of sense. Also, if it is such an useless tape, why was it destroyed?. Must be commish executing his power again for fun coz he is new to job. Lol.

[xXBOXADDICTx]

Howard Mudd used the info DURING the game. BB watched the video AFTER the game. Big difference.

If you knew anything about BB's upbringing, you'd never ask why he did it. His father was a coach at Navy when BB was a child, and his father taught him to break down film at the age of 4.

Btw, you keep forgetting this little fact: what BB did was only illegal based on the POSITION of the camera, not its content.

Haterz gotta, in this case, hate.

What proof do you have Mudd cheated? You dont because he did'nt break any NFL rules.

What proof do you have Belichick did not cheat? You dont because he broke NFL rules.

 

[TAPLOOK]

The Patriots win more games post Spygate. There's a lot of dummies out there. 

[dynasty13]

Pats fans are getting ridiculous here.

 

I ask you one question.  If the Patriots were not gaining an advantage, why were they doing it?  You are just plain being a homer by arguing they gained nothing from it.

 

Not only do you claim they gained no advantage, but in the same thread you say it is the same as what Howard Mudd was doing and he was gaining a huge advantage.....   You can't argue both ways.

 

Did Howard Mudd have an advantage from what he was doing?  Yes.

Was it against the rules?  Not that I know of.  

 

Did the Pats gain an advantage from what they were doing? Yes. If you want to argue no, then please tell me why they were doing it 

Was it against the rules?  YES

 

Just accept it and move on.  You guys are embarrassing yourselves... 

 

You want to hear about arguing things both ways?

 

What was Spygate about...taping defensive signals, right? Which anyone would logically reason should have helped the Patriots offense, right?

 

But what is the #1 argument that 'anti Patriot' fans make when trying to discredit Tom Brady and their Championships? "Tom didn't do anything but manage, it was all their defense and Vinatieri".

 

So tell me, if the Patriots defense is what won those Championships, then why do people continually make the case about how Spygate was the reason they won? Why do people continually say that such a big advantage was gained and then literally in the next breath talk about how the offense did nothing to win? It just doesnt make sense, especially as someone just mentioned, the offense has been astronomically better since Spygate.

 

I swear, the people who make the most noise about Spygate are always the ones who know the least about it.

[Blue Horseshoe]

You want to hear about arguing things both ways?

 

What was Spygate about...taping defensive signals, right? Which anyone would logically reason should have helped the Patriots offense, right?

 

But what is the #1 argument that 'anti Patriot' fans make when trying to discredit Tom Brady and their Championships? "Tom didn't do anything but manage, it was all their defense and Vinatieri".

 

So tell me, if the Patriots defense is what won those Championships, then why do people continually make the case about how Spygate was the reason they won? Why do people continually say that such a big advantage was gained and then literally in the next breath talk about how the offense did nothing to win? It just doesnt make sense, especially as someone just mentioned, the offense has been astronomically better since Spygate.

 

I swear, the people who make the most noise about Spygate are always the ones who know the least about it.

 

Easy!  They weren't taping defensive signals when the defense and Vinatieri were winning the championships.

They were cheating in all kinds of other ways (which of course supports Williams point about them). ;)

[Kyle]

You want to hear about arguing things both ways?

 

What was Spygate about...taping defensive signals, right? Which anyone would logically reason should have helped the Patriots offense, right?

 

But what is the #1 argument that 'anti Patriot' fans make when trying to discredit Tom Brady and their Championships? "Tom didn't do anything but manage, it was all their defense and Vinatieri".

 

So tell me, if the Patriots defense is what won those Championships, then why do people continually make the case about how Spygate was the reason they won? Why do people continually say that such a big advantage was gained and then literally in the next breath talk about how the offense did nothing to win? It just doesnt make sense, especially as someone just mentioned, the offense has been astronomically better since Spygate.

 

I swear, the people who make the most noise about Spygate are always the ones who know the least about it.

i dont know who these people are you speak of, but that is not what i am saying or ever said.  you couldn't argue with my facts so you changed the subject.  typical Pats fan...

 

i didnt say "defense is what won those Championships'", "make the case about how Spygate was the reason they won", "such a big advantage was gained", "talk about how the offense did nothing to win".  You quoted my post that started with "i will ask you one question", never answered the question, and went on a rant about stuff i didnt say.

 

Whether it was a big advantage or small advantage, they gained an advantage by doing something against the rules.  This is what the English language calls, CHEATING.      

[Shane Bond]

Because Goodell was relatively new as the commish, and Belichick ignored/ misinterpreted his memo.

He couldn't allow a coach to do that, not so early in his tenure. He had to set an example .

 

Someone gets a new job, wants to show his authority, so he exercised his maximum penalty. 

 

Fellas, there is our answer for spygate. All coz of one guy's new job fetish. Other than that, there is really nothing to it. Lets close the case.

[Shane Bond]

 He wanted to set a precedent that he is not to be messed with IMO.

 

Why does commish need to set a precedent so bad if this video signal is really a non-issue?.

 

And why was the tape destroyed, if it really means nothing?.

[Guest nflfan014]

Most Pats fans outside of those on message boards don't really care about Spygate.  The Pats were hated even before 2007.  The whole Spygate thing just made people hate them more.  Some bitter opposing fans' chants don't have any effect on enjoying the team I've been watching my whole life.

 

It would be interesting though to see the Pats win it all again before Brady/Belichick hang it up.  If people get this riled up about the Pats without them winning a SB in a long time, I can only imagine how most fans, especially Colts fans and Peyton fans, would feel with them hoisting the trophy one more time.

[ViriLudant]

i dont know who these people are you speak of, but that is not what i am saying or ever said. you couldn't argue with my facts so you changed the subject. typical Pats fan...

i didnt say "defense is what won those Championships'", "make the case about how Spygate was the reason they won", "such a big advantage was gained", "talk about how the offense did nothing to win". You quoted my post that started with "i will ask you one question", never answered the question, and went on a rant about stuff i didnt say.

Whether it was a big advantage or small advantage, they gained an advantage by doing something against the rules. This is what the English language calls, CHEATING.

You still haven't answered my question .

How typical .

What advantage did the Patriots gain?

[cdgacoltsfan]

Because Goodell was relatively new as the commish, and Belichick ignored/ misinterpreted his memo.

He couldn't allow a coach to do that, not so early in his tenure. He had to set an example .

You would think a "genius" could have figured out such a complex memo.  31 other coaches did.

[TAPLOOK]

The Patriots have a .785 winning percentage (best in the NFL) post Spygate. People don't embarrass yourselves.

[GoPats]

Like Dynasty said, the only thing that still bothers me about "Spygate" is that the people who bring it up most often seem to mostly have a very poor grasp on the actual facts surrounding what happened. The Patriots got caught filming defensive coaches signaling in plays from a specific location on the field (sidelines). Gillette Stadium holds almost 70,000 people and about half of those people, with a camera with an adequate zoom lens, could do what the Patriots did in New York that day. 

 

There was no evidence that the video was used in-game, and it would take a team of pretty highly trained and efficient production people to do so. You would have to take the video as it's shot, line it up with game film (which teams do not get from the league in-game, so it would have to be the TV broadcast), check the pre-snap formations on defense, and then determine which of the many "dummy" signals the defensive coach is actually using. So even if you saw the same play executed twice, you'd have to review the "illegal" video and find the common denominator (whatever signal was used to call the play).

 

Then, in order to use it to your advantage, you would need someone to tell the QB the call pre-snap, call a good play or audible to counter it, and then execute that play successfully. This doesn't account for any anomalies, like guys who are out of position or post-snap swaps and reads by the defense. 

 

This would all have to happen, play by play, within the confines of the play clock. Give that some honest thought and ask yourself if it would even be possible to pull off. 

 

What makes Cary Williams' comment particularly stupid and ignorant is the fact that defensive play calls have been radioed in for several years now. 

 

Some have bashed Goodell for destroying the tapes, but that's not entirely true. The NFL did release some of it at the time. Also, I'm not sure "what else" people think were on them. The NFL busted the Patriots, the Patriots acknowledged what was on the film... no one denied anything. The league didn't release hours of mind-numbingly boring video of overweight defensive coordinators gesticulating on the sidelines. That means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things.

 

I get it though. People hate it when teams other than their own have any sort of prolonged success in sports. The Patriots were America's darlings when they came out of the tunnel as a team in the Super Bowl after 9/11, massive underdogs against a seemingly unbeatable foe in the Rams. Nearly 15 seasons later, everyone is sick of hearing about them, and a lot of what they've done (Belichick being less than warm-and-fuzzy, Brady being Brady) has exacerbated that hatred. 

 

Also, the "Spygate book," written by a lifelong Steelers fan (and he's not exactly forthcoming with that info), has been widely debunked. The guy spent about $30,000 of his own money to get it published. That should tell you everything you need to know. No legitimate publisher would touch it because he has no legitimate sources and the entire thing is based on pure speculation. 

 

Fact is, there is no asterisk in the books next to Super Bowls 36, 38, and 39. You look that info up in 1000 years and it'll still say the Patriots won those games. Sure there will be doubters, haters, and speculators. But they'll never win this argument, and they'll never get what they want. 

[TAPLOOK]

Facts mean nothing to them GoPats. Pure ignorance.

[amfootball]

Why does commish need to set a precedent so bad if this video signal is really a non-issue?.

 

And why was the tape destroyed, if it really means nothing?.

His memo to all 32 teams was not a non-issue. He felt disrespected by Bill and dealt the punishment accordingly and he has continued to rule that way his entire tenure. His MO has been to run a tight ship.

 

I have no idea why he destroyed the tapes. The Pats handed them over as soon as they were asked and never hid what they were doing. In fact ESPN did air the tapes from Matt Walsh and all there was shots of the scoreboard, down and distance, and shots of the DC who most of the time was never giving signals. It was pretty monotonous and boring. Again, the Pats never concealed what they were doing. Bill believed it was legal as long as he was not using the footage in game which he wasn't. He did not respect the memo which told him he could no longer tape on the sideline. He was punished for the action not the result.

[Shane Bond]

The Patriots have a .785 winning percentage (best in the NFL) post Spygate. People don't embarrass yourselves.

Can you break down the regular season vs post season please?.