Eagles's Cary Williams: Patriots are 'cheaters'

[Coffeedrinker]

Not a Nikon, but at one point it was a Polaroid:

 

NEW YORK -- NFL teams used to take Polaroid pictures of plays from atop the stadium during games then send them down to the field on a rope.

 

 

Technology improved so that an automated camera could deliver the images to a printer on the sideline, creating that familiar sight of a quarterback staring at a sheet of paper to figure out what went wrong on an interception.

 

 

 

That was still the case last season, when fans in the stands could watch highlights on their smartphones, but players and coaches were flipping through three-ring binders of black-and-white photos.

 

The NFL sideline is finally catching up.

 

 

Sort of.

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_26271954/nfl-sideline-tech-inches-forward-tablets-replace-polaroids

 

 

You know I've been here for a long time and am a straight shooter. Teams do not get video in-game. Of course it's available to anyone with a tablet, smart phone, DVR, etc. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but no source out there indicates that the "all 22" film is created and/or distributed to teams while the game is being played.

 

I obviously would not argue any facts about Spygate. They were caught filming. The question, like I said earlier, is how much did it help, and how was it used?

 

Let's discuss - respectfully as always. Consider for a moment what would be necessary to use the sideline video in-game. 

 

1. Sideline cameraman films the clock and defensive play calls.

 

2. That video then needs to be lined up with televised game film, which must be recorded on a DVR or hard drive so it can be ran back and forward. 

 

3. The play has to be broken down and (roughly) decoded in terms of man/zone coverage, blitz or 4-man rush, etc.

 

4. The coordinators hand signals have to be deciphered. I assume that, like in baseball, the "real" signal is hidden in a bunch of random gesturing. I don't know for sure because no NFL teams responded to my unsolicited resume and cover letter. ;)  But even if that's not the case, the task remains the same: You have to line up the play they ran with the signal you saw.

 

5. Then you have to create some kind of index of plays and calls to reference on the fly. Maybe this info would be jotted down. Maybe it would be laid out with screen captures. Either way it's something that would be necessary in order to use the information that you have. 

 

6. Then you have to take that information and, within the confines of the play clock, "steal" the defensive play call, select a play to counter, and communicate it to the QB. This happens on the fly with the clock ticking, substitutions coming in and out, etc.

 

7. Even if 1-6 goes perfectly, then you have to execute the play. 

 

 

How many people would an operation like that require? How many cameras, monitors, computers, etc? What about communication systems? Radios, etc. There are a lot of people running around on NFL sidelines but would you be able to conceal an operation of that magnitude? And if you did conceal the rest of it, why leave the cameraman out there in plain view when you can put him up in the stands, in a team box, or anywhere else? What's the most logical and believable answer? 

 

Also, how many times in a single game does a team call the same play? I'm sure that varies. 

 

I'm not sure myself if this is all coming from the logical part of my brain or the fan part. When a person wants to believe something he/she will tend to believe it. But trying to be as objective as I can, I honestly don't see this immensely elaborate and clandestine operation ever existing in Foxboro. Belichick is known for his thoroughness and tenacity; I'm sure there was some sort of long term, R&D type value in filming the signals, but doubt that it could have made an immediate impact on any games. My guess is that it was more about tendencies. 

 

To speak to Cary Williams' rant... defensive calls are no longer signaled in. Maybe he believes something else is going on, but if he does he didn't have the stones to say it. 

 

And I'd add that most of you, in the ongoing debates over the years, mostly credit the Patriots' defense with the 3 championships. I'd agree that unit was the heart and soul of the team, and certainly the catalyst for the Rams-Pats Super Bowl. Keeping that in mind, Spygate was never about stealing offensive plays. If you believe the defense carried the team, then - by default, almost - you've got to believe that the impact of Spygate was nominal. 

 

That's what I got. Looking forward to your reply... 

The polaroid comment is funny, but really has no bearing.  I think it was a MNF game in the late 70s where they showed a QB looking at polaroids on the sidelines for the first time.

 

The article makes it sound like a huge production but it's not, the article is assuming that most people are ignorant to the level of technology used in the NFL.  It would take a 3 man crew to do what is outlined in points 1-6.  The camera man, the guy compiling and syncing the information and a runner.  And it doesn't take that much time.  I bet most of it was done as the other team was on offense, they would have 3 to maybe 10-12 plays to sync each time.

 

And yes, I agree the players still have to execute and I mentioned that in an earlier post.  But it is much easier to execute if you know that, for example, they will be bringing the OLB on the short side on a delayed blitz while looping the DT to the same side to overload the line.  Nor does the entire O need to know, all that is required is the QB know so he can bring the TE over to the short side of the field and tell the RB to stay in and block to the short side. The players study hours of film each week to pick up on things so they can try to pick up on things to make those adjustments, if you know when it's coming those adjustments are easier to make. Or if you know they are calling a zone coverage on the back end, the OC knows to call the plays from the game plan that is designed to bust the zone coverage.  There are a thousand examples I could give (well at least dozens).

 

Again, this is all history and I don't understand the reasoning behind William's rant.  I just get a bit miffed by the revisionist history so many Pats fans try to force upon everyone and the statements about it was no big deal or everyone does it, etc.  Or one poster saying over and over again that no one has shown how they gained a competitive advantage by it while pointedly ignoring all the posts explaining how the Pats gained a competitive advantage by it.

[amfootball]

The polaroid comment is funny, but really has no bearing.  I think it was a MNF game in the late 70s where they showed a QB looking at polaroids on the sidelines for the first time.

 

The article makes it sound like a huge production but it's not, the article is assuming that most people are ignorant to the level of technology used in the NFL.  It would take a 3 man crew to do what is outlined in points 1-6.  The camera man, the guy compiling and syncing the information and a runner.  And it doesn't take that much time.  I bet most of it was done as the other team was on offense, they would have 3 to maybe 10-12 plays to sync each time.

 

And yes, I agree the players still have to execute and I mentioned that in an earlier post.  But it is much easier to execute if you know that, for example, they will be bringing the OLB on the short side on a delayed blitz while looping the DT to the same side to overload the line.  Nor does the entire O need to know, all that is required is the QB know so he can bring the TE over to the short side of the field and tell the RB to stay in and block to the short side. The players study hours of film each week to pick up on things so they can try to pick up on things to make those adjustments, if you know when it's coming those adjustments are easier to make. Or if you know they are calling a zone coverage on the back end, the OC knows to call the plays from the game plan that is designed to bust the zone coverage.  There are a thousand examples I could give (well at least dozens).

 

Again, this is all history and I don't understand the reasoning behind William's rant.  I just get a bit miffed by the revisionist history so many Pats fans try to force upon everyone and the statements about it was no big deal or everyone does it, etc.  Or one poster saying over and over again that no one has shown how they gained a competitive advantage by it while pointedly ignoring all the posts explaining how the Pats gained a competitive advantage by it.

That is all fine and dandy but the Pats were never found guilty of using the tape in game. That has been the whole point. Everything you have is speculation. The league did a very long and thorough investigation and never claimed to have found any evidence of the Pats using the footage in game. In fact, Goodell came out and said everything that was on the tapes was as the team said which is why he destroyed them and he never found any evidence of the film being used in game. That is the main reason why Bill kept doing it. He felt as long he wasn't using the footage in-game then it was still legal. He admitted that he misinterpreted the memo and it was his fault.

[sweetsurrender]

The polaroid comment is funny, but really has no bearing.  I think it was a MNF game in the late 70s where they showed a QB looking at polaroids on the sidelines for the first time.

 

The article makes it sound like a huge production but it's not, the article is assuming that most people are ignorant to the level of technology used in the NFL.  It would take a 3 man crew to do what is outlined in points 1-6.  The camera man, the guy compiling and syncing the information and a runner.  And it doesn't take that much time.  I bet most of it was done as the other team was on offense, they would have 3 to maybe 10-12 plays to sync each time.

 

And yes, I agree the players still have to execute and I mentioned that in an earlier post.  But it is much easier to execute if you know that, for example, they will be bringing the OLB on the short side on a delayed blitz while looping the DT to the same side to overload the line.  Nor does the entire O need to know, all that is required is the QB know so he can bring the TE over to the short side of the field and tell the RB to stay in and block to the short side. The players study hours of film each week to pick up on things so they can try to pick up on things to make those adjustments, if you know when it's coming those adjustments are easier to make. Or if you know they are calling a zone coverage on the back end, the OC knows to call the plays from the game plan that is designed to bust the zone coverage.  There are a thousand examples I could give (well at least dozens).

 

Again, this is all history and I don't understand the reasoning behind William's rant.  I just get a bit miffed by the revisionist history so many Pats fans try to force upon everyone and the statements about it was no big deal or everyone does it, etc.  Or one poster saying over and over again that no one has shown how they gained a competitive advantage by it while pointedly ignoring all the posts explaining how the Pats gained a competitive advantage by it.

Your whole post is revisionist history. The patriots were never found guilty of using the tape in game.

[sweetsurrender]

You know what I wish the Colts would do? Take a long, hard look at how NE scouts and finds its talent. Last night they had an undrafted FA playing left corner and he looked dominant. Made play after play all game. Their slot guy is a 7th round pick who was a college QB. I mean at some point you have to build your roster with some players that look like diamonds in the rough but end up being solid contributors. Our roster is mediocre at this point and we could benefit from finding some of the guys the NE always seems to uncover season after season.

[Coffeedrinker]

That is all fine and dandy but the Pats were never found guilty of using the tape in game. That has been the whole point. Everything you have is speculation. The league did a very long and thorough investigation and never claimed to have found any evidence of the Pats using the footage in game. In fact, Goodell came out and said everything that was on the tapes was as the team said which is why he destroyed them and he never found any evidence of the film being used in game. That is the main reason why Bill kept doing it. He felt as long he wasn't using the footage in-game then it was still legal. He admitted that he misinterpreted the memo and it was his fault.

I really can't argue against stupidity or at the very least, blind obedience to your ruler.  Have you ever heard the phrase, "Actions speak louder than words."  I don't really care what Goodell said, his actions (destroying the evidence, huge fines and taking away a 1st round draft pick) speak much louder about how serious of an issue it was.  It was not a mere misinterpretation of the memo.  If it was that, the league would have penalized BB but the entire team benefited and the entire team was therefore penalized.

[Coffeedrinker]

Your whole post is revisionist history. The patriots were never found guilty of using the tape in game.

You really don't understand much do you?  The question was how they could have used it during the game.  I explained how they could have used it during the game.  It would be much easier to give specific examples of how they did it if I could see the evidence and tapes but, alas, they have been destroyed.  

 

Hmmmmmmmm, I just thought of something... maybe that is why Goodell destroyed the evidence, so the claims could never be disproven.

[amfootball]

I really can't argue against stupidity or at the very least, blind obedience to your ruler.  Have you ever heard the phrase, "Actions speak louder than words."  I don't really care what Goodell said, his actions (destroying the evidence, huge fines and taking away a 1st round draft pick) speak much louder about how serious of an issue it was.  It was not a mere misinterpretation of the memo.  If it was that, the league would have penalized BB but the entire team benefited and the entire team was therefore penalized.

Perhaps you missed my post from the other day. Here it is for you. Straight from Goodell himself on why he punished the Pats and why he destroyed the tapes:

 

"The actual effectiveness of taping and taking of signals from opponents … it's something done widely in many sports," Goodell said. "I think it probably had limited, if any, effect on the outcome of games.

"That doesn't change my perspective on violating rules and the need to be punished," he added.

 

http://www.thesunchr...b3a47b35ba.html

 

Pretty much have it right there that he was setting a precedent about following the rules.

 

He also added this about destroying the tapes, "The reason I destroyed the tapes is they were totally consistent with what the team told me," Goodell said. "It was the appropriate thing to do and I think it sent a message."

[GoPats]

The polaroid comment is funny, but really has no bearing.  I think it was a MNF game in the late 70s where they showed a QB looking at polaroids on the sidelines for the first time.

 

The article makes it sound like a huge production but it's not, the article is assuming that most people are ignorant to the level of technology used in the NFL.  It would take a 3 man crew to do what is outlined in points 1-6.  The camera man, the guy compiling and syncing the information and a runner.  And it doesn't take that much time.  I bet most of it was done as the other team was on offense, they would have 3 to maybe 10-12 plays to sync each time.

 

And yes, I agree the players still have to execute and I mentioned that in an earlier post.  But it is much easier to execute if you know that, for example, they will be bringing the OLB on the short side on a delayed blitz while looping the DT to the same side to overload the line.  Nor does the entire O need to know, all that is required is the QB know so he can bring the TE over to the short side of the field and tell the RB to stay in and block to the short side. The players study hours of film each week to pick up on things so they can try to pick up on things to make those adjustments, if you know when it's coming those adjustments are easier to make. Or if you know they are calling a zone coverage on the back end, the OC knows to call the plays from the game plan that is designed to bust the zone coverage.  There are a thousand examples I could give (well at least dozens).

 

Again, this is all history and I don't understand the reasoning behind William's rant.  I just get a bit miffed by the revisionist history so many Pats fans try to force upon everyone and the statements about it was no big deal or everyone does it, etc.  Or one poster saying over and over again that no one has shown how they gained a competitive advantage by it while pointedly ignoring all the posts explaining how the Pats gained a competitive advantage by it.

 

Having done some video production work, I strongly disagree that a three-person team could pull that off. But that's irrelevant, of course, and 100% opinion-based.

 

I hope you got the point behind the link - NFL teams do not get film in-game. They never have. You claimed earlier that the still images players look at on the sidelines are video stills, but they're not. That one's not an opinion.  ;)

 

Maybe, someday, Belichick will talk more about it. I thought he did himself and the team a disservice by deflecting questions about it. That invited the worst speculation. They brought this on themselves, no matter how you look at it. It was a stupid mistake that opened up a glorious door for people who hate the Patriots. 

[sweetsurrender]

You really don't understand much do you?  The question was how they could have used it during the game.  I explained how they could have used it during the game.  It would be much easier to give specific examples of how they did it if I could see the evidence and tapes but, alas, they have been destroyed.  

 

Hmmmmmmmm, I just thought of something... maybe that is why Goodell destroyed the evidence, so the claims could never be disproven.

Like I said, all speculation. All you have is conspiracy theory.

[Bobbycovert]

First off, i never said you are a Pats fan.

 

Secondly, since you have come forward and being kind enough to disclose your fanhood, i don't see a single post of yours saying  Pats fans petty for calling out Howard Mudd when he indeed was not fined a single dollar for his actions.

 

Nice job, "Colts fan".

There was really no need to defend Mudd. Unless I missed the part where a Pats fan accused the Colts of cheating and claimed that an asterisk should be put next to their accomplishments.  In my mind, it is the job of the players and staff of each team to disguise signals/play calls and any lapse deserves to be taken advantage of.  

 

The idea that only Pats fans were arguing in favor of the Pats was heavily implied in your comment so I addressed it.  I've been around these forums long enough to know that open-minded assessments of numerous topics are frowned upon, this being one. 

 

I'm not gonna waste anymore time trying to discuss this. But I do want to be clear.

• I believe the Pats broke the rule in order to gain some benefit
• I accept the reports from well respected coaches who say that sideline taping was not uncommon prior to the 2006 memo and spygate controversy
• I consider statistical evidence showing consistent performance by the patriots before and after spygate to be compelling evidence that any benefit from the infraction was insignificant
• I don't believe that an infraction directly related to a memo in 2006 is cause to put an asterisk alongside achievements that occurred prior to the memo (I also highly doubt that a league-wide memo was sent because one team was engaging in the activity)
• I think they were caught breaking a rule and were punished but the entire thing has been completely overblown by conspiracy theorists and bitter players, coaches and fans

If I've misunderstood something or am mistaken about anything let me know and I'd be happy to reassess. Otherwise, I feel pretty comfortable with my position considering that you have only provided side arguments and off-topic jabs.

[sweetsurrender]

There was really no need to defend Mudd. Unless I missed the part where a Pats fan accused the Colts of cheating and claimed that an asterisk should be put next to their accomplishments.  In my mind, it is the job of the players and staff of each team to disguise signals/play calls and any lapse deserves to be taken advantage of.  

 

The idea that only Pats fans were arguing in favor of the Pats was heavily implied in your comment so I addressed it.  I've been around these forums long enough to know that open-minded assessments of numerous topics are frowned upon, this being one. 

 

I'm not gonna waste anymore time trying to discuss this. But I do want to be clear.

• I believe the Pats broke the rule in order to gain some benefit
• I accept the reports from well respected coaches who say that sideline taping was not uncommon prior to the 2006 memo and spygate controversy
• I consider statistical evidence showing consistent performance by the patriots before and after spygate to be compelling evidence that any benefit from the infraction was insignificant
• I don't believe that an infraction directly related to a memo in 2006 is cause to put an asterisk alongside achievements that occurred prior to the memo (I also highly doubt that a league-wide memo was sent because one team was engaging in the activity)
• I think they were caught breaking a rule and were punished but the entire thing has been completely overblown by conspiracy theorists and bitter players, coaches and fans

If I've misunderstood something or am mistaken about anything let me know and I'd be happy to reassess. Otherwise, I feel pretty comfortable with my position considering that you have only provided side arguments and off-topic jabs.

This is pretty much my position as well as a Colts fan. 

[Shane Bond]

There was really no need to defend Mudd. Unless I missed the part where a Pats fan accused the Colts of cheating and claimed that an asterisk should be put next to their accomplishments.  In my mind, it is the job of the players and staff of each team to disguise signals/play calls and any lapse deserves to be taken advantage of.  

 

The idea that only Pats fans were arguing in favor of the Pats was heavily implied in your comment so I addressed it.  I've been around these forums long enough to know that open-minded assessments of numerous topics are frowned upon, this being one. 

 

I'm not gonna waste anymore time trying to discuss this. But I do want to be clear.

• I believe the Pats broke the rule in order to gain some benefit
• I accept the reports from well respected coaches who say that sideline taping was not uncommon prior to the 2006 memo and spygate controversy
• I consider statistical evidence showing consistent performance by the patriots before and after spygate to be compelling evidence that any benefit from the infraction was insignificant
• I don't believe that an infraction directly related to a memo in 2006 is cause to put an asterisk alongside achievements that occurred prior to the memo (I also highly doubt that a league-wide memo was sent because one team was engaging in the activity)
• I think they were caught breaking a rule and were punished but the entire thing has been completely overblown by conspiracy theorists and bitter players, coaches and fans

If I've misunderstood something or am mistaken about anything let me know and I'd be happy to reassess. Otherwise, I feel pretty comfortable with my position considering that you have only provided side arguments and off-topic jabs.

See the bolded above.

 

There is a whole lot of missing but i like the paragraph structure. Nice work.

[Shane Bond]

You really don't understand much do you?  

Please dont talk truth and logic. Too much to handle. 

[Shane Bond]

I really can't argue against stupidity or at the very least, blind obedience to your ruler.  Have you ever heard the phrase, "Actions speak louder than words."  I don't really care what Goodell said, his actions (destroying the evidence, huge fines and taking away a 1st round draft pick) speak much louder about how serious of an issue it was.  It was not a mere misinterpretation of the memo.  If it was that, the league would have penalized BB but the entire team benefited and the entire team was therefore penalized.

Below is from Marshall Faulk. Of course, wait till he gets slammed for this.  :clap:

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/shutdown-corner/marshall-faulk-brings-spygate-ll-never-over-being-182812366--nfl.html

 

 

"Am I over the loss? Yeah, I'm over the loss. But I'll never be over being cheated out of the Super Bowl. That's a different story," Faulk said, according to a story by Tom Curran of Comcast SportsNet New England. "I can understand losing a Super Bowl, that's fine . . . But how things happened and what took place. Obviously, the commissioner gets to handle things how he wants to handle them but if they wanted us to shut up about what happened, show us the tapes. Don't burn 'em."

 

Any time that I was offset, I was always stationary," Faulk told ComcastSportsnet. "And we had (created) motioning in the backfield at the same depth on the other side of the field. And they created a check for it. It's just little things like that.

"It's either the best coaching in the world when you come up with situations that you had never seen before. Or you'd seen it and knew what to do."

[GoPats]

See the bolded above.

 

There is a whole lot of missing but i like the paragraph structure. Nice work.

 

Is this how you respond when you get owned? 

 

Ahh, just kidding... we already knew that! 

[Coffeedrinker]

Like I said, all speculation. All you have is conspiracy theory.

Ha.  I will type slowly so you will understand... of course it's speculation the evidence was destroyed, that is why they destroy evidence... so things can only be speculated not proven.

 

But they didn't hand down those fines and take away a 1st round draft pick because it was all innocent fun.

[Bobbycovert]

Below is from Marshall Faulk. Of course, wait till he gets slammed for this.  :clap:

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/shutdown-corner/marshall-faulk-brings-spygate-ll-never-over-being-182812366--nfl.html

 

 

"Am I over the loss? Yeah, I'm over the loss. But I'll never be over being cheated out of the Super Bowl. That's a different story," Faulk said, according to a story by Tom Curran of Comcast SportsNet New England. "I can understand losing a Super Bowl, that's fine . . . But how things happened and what took place. Obviously, the commissioner gets to handle things how he wants to handle them but if they wanted us to shut up about what happened, show us the tapes. Don't burn 'em."

 

Any time that I was offset, I was always stationary," Faulk told ComcastSportsnet. "And we had (created) motioning in the backfield at the same depth on the other side of the field. And they created a check for it. It's just little things like that.

"It's either the best coaching in the world when you come up with situations that you had never seen before. Or you'd seen it and knew what to do."

 

Ughh..so its quote time. Ok, lets do this:

 

Jimmy Johnson, who coached the Dallas Cowboys to two Super Bowl Championships, said he also had staffers tape opposing coaches. Johnson said teams could tape signals from the press box, but sometimes the press box was on the wrong side of the field. In that case, the cameraman filmed from the sidelines. Johnson, who also had interns search other teams’ trash for discarded notes and game plans, said taping coaches wasn’t worth the effort and abandoned it.

 

“We didn’t lose the game because of any Spygate, because of them having any additional things,” Cowher said in a radio interview Wednesday, per CBS Pittsburgh. “I think if they’re guilty of anything, they’re guilty of arrogance, because they were told not to do something. But it was something that everybody does. The only thing they got caught [was] doing it with a camera. We had people that always tried to steal signals. Stealing someone’s signals was a part of the game, and everybody attempted to do that.”

 

It just seems to me that subterfuge has been a part of the game for a long while. 

 

[Shane Bond]

Is this how you respond when you get owned? 

 

Ahh, just kidding... we already knew that! 

Of course, you always make sense.

[GoPats]

Below is from Marshall Faulk. Of course, wait till he gets slammed for this.  :clap:

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/shutdown-corner/marshall-faulk-brings-spygate-ll-never-over-being-182812366--nfl.html

 

 

"Am I over the loss? Yeah, I'm over the loss. But I'll never be over being cheated out of the Super Bowl. That's a different story," Faulk said, according to a story by Tom Curran of Comcast SportsNet New England. "I can understand losing a Super Bowl, that's fine . . . But how things happened and what took place. Obviously, the commissioner gets to handle things how he wants to handle them but if they wanted us to shut up about what happened, show us the tapes. Don't burn 'em."

 

Any time that I was offset, I was always stationary," Faulk told ComcastSportsnet. "And we had (created) motioning in the backfield at the same depth on the other side of the field. And they created a check for it. It's just little things like that.

"It's either the best coaching in the world when you come up with situations that you had never seen before. Or you'd seen it and knew what to do."

 

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/54951/willie-mcginest-responds-to-marshall-faulk

 

"If we had any extra information, then that game wouldn't have been as dramatic as it was, coming down to a field goal," McGinest told Comcast Sports Net in New England. "Trust me. It would have been a blowout." 

The Patriots won the game, 20-17, with an Adam Vinatieri field goal in the final seconds, which jumpstarted New England's dynasty. The "Spygate" scandal broke years later, and it's clear that doesn't sit well with some former players like Faulk. 

But beyond that, this looks like two retired players arguing over a game from more than a decade ago. The final score still stands in the record books and that's not going to change. It's time for everyone to move on.

[Coffeedrinker]

Having done some video production work, I strongly disagree that a three-person team could pull that off. But that's irrelevant, of course, and 100% opinion-based.

 

I hope you got the point behind the link - NFL teams do not get film in-game. They never have. You claimed earlier that the still images players look at on the sidelines are video stills, but they're not. That one's not an opinion.  ;)

 

Maybe, someday, Belichick will talk more about it. I thought he did himself and the team a disservice by deflecting questions about it. That invited the worst speculation. They brought this on themselves, no matter how you look at it. It was a stupid mistake that opened up a glorious door for people who hate the Patriots. 

I will stipulate to your expertise on 3 people not being able to pull it off.  How many people would it take in your opinion.

 

And the teams don't get film during the game comment is a bit naive (sp?)  If fans can view replays on their phones during the game is it so hard to believe that teams can have someone do the same thing?  They may not get the official film but they have access to the same content as everyone else.  Additionally, they have shown many shots of Manning over the years of looking at stills of the plays.  They were not black and white photos in a 3 ring binder, they were full page, color screen prints.  Polaroids are not fast enough to keep up with the action while people are running.

[TAPLOOK]

It's pretty clear reading the thread that the Spygate battle cry is just that...a cry.

[Nadine]

I am bored of this topic.  I don't know how people stay so emotional about it.

[TAPLOOK]

I am bored of this topic.  I don't know how people stay so emotional about it.

I find it interesting the some dwell on such a trivial thing. Patriots fans argument is factual but I do agree the anti Patriot crowd is emotional.

[xXBOXADDICTx]

Burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

Then why break the rules if no advantage is gained from it?

[ViriLudant]

The polaroid comment is funny, but really has no bearing. I think it was a MNF game in the late 70s where they showed a QB looking at polaroids on the sidelines for the first time.

The article makes it sound like a huge production but it's not, the article is assuming that most people are ignorant to the level of technology used in the NFL. It would take a 3 man crew to do what is outlined in points 1-6. The camera man, the guy compiling and syncing the information and a runner. And it doesn't take that much time. I bet most of it was done as the other team was on offense, they would have 3 to maybe 10-12 plays to sync each time.

And yes, I agree the players still have to execute and I mentioned that in an earlier post. But it is much easier to execute if you know that, for example, they will be bringing the OLB on the short side on a delayed blitz while looping the DT to the same side to overload the line. Nor does the entire O need to know, all that is required is the QB know so he can bring the TE over to the short side of the field and tell the RB to stay in and block to the short side. The players study hours of film each week to pick up on things so they can try to pick up on things to make those adjustments, if you know when it's coming those adjustments are easier to make. Or if you know they are calling a zone coverage on the back end, the OC knows to call the plays from the game plan that is designed to bust the zone coverage. There are a thousand examples I could give (well at least dozens).

Again, this is all history and I don't understand the reasoning behind William's rant. I just get a bit miffed by the revisionist history so many Pats fans try to force upon everyone and the statements about it was no big deal or everyone does it, etc. Or one poster saying over and over again that no one has shown how they gained a competitive advantage by it while pointedly ignoring all the posts explaining how the Pats gained a competitive advantage by it.

Not one poster has demonstrated that, in terms of what the Patriots actually did, a competitive edge was gained.

Nowhere has that been shown.

Polian agrees with me. Dungy disagrees with you .

[ViriLudant]

You really don't understand much do you? The question was how they could have used it during the game. I explained how they could have used it during the game. It would be much easier to give specific examples of how they did it if I could see the evidence and tapes but, alas, they have been destroyed.

Hmmmmmmmm, I just thought of something... maybe that is why Goodell destroyed the evidence, so the claims could never be disproven.

You might want to look up what the logical fallacy argument ad ignorantiam is.

Because you're fulfilling it in every post.

[sweetsurrender]

Ha.  I will type slowly so you will understand... of course it's speculation the evidence was destroyed, that is why they destroy evidence... so things can only be speculated not proven.

 

But they didn't hand down those fines and take away a 1st round draft pick because it was all innocent fun.

Ok then your issue is with the commissioner not the Pats. He did hand out the penalty and said why as has been posted. If you don't believe him then that is your issue.

[dynasty13]

Then why break the rules if no advantage is gained from it?

 

Because it saved time. If anything, THAT was the advantage that was gained. Every team still ended up at the same destination (stealing/deciphering signals), the Patriots just drove above the speed limit and they got pulled over and given a ticket. Every single former coach or front office personnel that commented on it said the same thing about it not giving them an advantage on the field. The only ones who did then and still whine about it now are opposing players and opposing fans. In other words, the people who wouldn't have any clue about it...

[TAPLOOK]

The criers are getting killed.

[Coffeedrinker]

Not one poster has demonstrated that, in terms of what the Patriots actually did, a competitive edge was gained.

Nowhere has that been shown.

Polian agrees with me. Dungy disagrees with you .

From reading your posts on this forum over the years, I knew you lacked self confidence but I did not think it went so far is that you make your decisions based on what other people think.

 

You might want to look up what the logical fallacy argument ad ignorantiam is.

Because you're fulfilling it in every post.

Please, I converse with Pat fans a lot because of that I am very familiar with logical fallacy in debate (many pat fans use that all the time).  But please explain how it is in all my posts.

 

Ok then your issue is with the commissioner not the Pats. He did hand out the penalty and said why as has been posted. If you don't believe him then that is your issue.

When have I ever stated I have an issue with the Pats?  Most Pat fans on this board that know me, know I think BB is one of the best coaches in the modern era (which is another point I will mention later).  The Pats cheated at got punished.  I do have an issue with Goodell destroying the evidence but I thought Goodell was a putz before Spygate.  What I have the biggest issue with is Pat fans that portray it as no big deal, try to justify what the Pats did, act like everyone did it or that what he didn't was completely within bounds if only he had moved his camera.  And I believe I have stated that several times.

 

Now back to BB.  I think BB is a brilliant football mind, he does things to gain a competitive advantage that many coaches don't even think about.  So this memo was sent out... 31 other teams knew what it meant but BB did not?  I don't believe that, he's too smart. 2nd, everything BB does as a coach is done to put his team in the best position to win the game, knowing all that to think that he would do something that would risk his standing as a coach and the reputation of the team for something that only saved a little bit of time and provided no advantage just does not make any sense at all.  Every aspect of football is about risk analysis and the scenario painted about why it was done just does not fly when comparing the benefits (as put force by league talking points and Pat fans) to the risks involved.

[GoPats]

I will stipulate to your expertise on 3 people not being able to pull it off.  How many people would it take in your opinion.

 

And the teams don't get film during the game comment is a bit naive (sp?)  If fans can view replays on their phones during the game is it so hard to believe that teams can have someone do the same thing?  They may not get the official film but they have access to the same content as everyone else.  Additionally, they have shown many shots of Manning over the years of looking at stills of the plays.  They were not black and white photos in a 3 ring binder, they were full page, color screen prints.  Polaroids are not fast enough to keep up with the action while people are running.

 

In order to turn all of it around in a matter of minutes, you would need around 5 "technical" people and at least one "football" person to interpret what they're seeing. 

 

Also, regarding film... I get what you're saying but the problem is there were no smart phones in 2001, 2003, and 2004 my friend! No tablets. TiVO existed but DVRs were not in every home. If we're discussing the impact of Spygate on the Patriots' success, the technology from 10-14 years ago needs to be considered. 

 

The images Manning and other guys study on the sidelines aren't LITERALLY Polaroids (at least not anymore), but as the article stated, they're from still cameras mounted high up in the stadium. Not from video. That was the only point. 

[TAPLOOK]

In order to turn all of it around in a matter of minutes, you would need around 5 "technical" people and at least one "football" person to interpret what they're seeing. 

 

Also, regarding film... I get what you're saying but the problem is there were no smart phones in 2001, 2003, and 2004 my friend! No tablets. TiVO existed but DVRs were not in every home. If we're discussing the impact of Spygate on the Patriots' success, the technology from 10-14 years ago needs to be considered. 

 

The images Manning and other guys study on the sidelines aren't LITERALLY Polaroids (at least not anymore), but as the article stated, they're from still cameras mounted high up in the stadium. Not from video. That was the only point. 

 

 

You're making to much sense.

[TAPLOOK]

From reading your posts on this forum over the years, I knew you lacked self confidence but I did not think it went so far is that you make your decisions based on what other people think.

 

Please, I converse with Pat fans a lot because of that I am very familiar with logical fallacy in debate (many pat fans use that all the time).  But please explain how it is in all my posts.

 

When have I ever stated I have an issue with the Pats?  Most Pat fans on this board that know me, know I think BB is one of the best coaches in the modern era (which is another point I will mention later).  The Pats cheated at got punished.  I do have an issue with Goodell destroying the evidence but I thought Goodell was a putz before Spygate.  What I have the biggest issue with is Pat fans that portray it as no big deal, try to justify what the Pats did, act like everyone did it or that what he didn't was completely within bounds if only he had moved his camera.  And I believe I have stated that several times.

 

Now back to BB.  I think BB is a brilliant football mind, he does things to gain a competitive advantage that many coaches don't even think about.  So this memo was sent out... 31 other teams knew what it meant but BB did not?  I don't believe that, he's too smart. 2nd, everything BB does as a coach is done to put his team in the best position to win the game, knowing all that to think that he would do something that would risk his standing as a coach and the reputation of the team for something that only saved a little bit of time and provided no advantage just does not make any sense at all.  Every aspect of football is about risk analysis and the scenario painted about why it was done just does not fly when comparing the benefits (as put force by league talking points and Pat fans) to the risks involved.

 

 

Simple. BB didn't think it was a big deal.

[Shane Bond]

Simple. BB didn't think it was a big deal.

Reason I love his thinking.

1.spygate

2. 4th and 2

He has given life long treasures.

[TAPLOOK]

Simple. BB didn't think it was a big deal.

miss post could delete.

[TAPLOOK]

Reason I love his thinking.

1.spygate

2. 4th and 2

He has given life long treasures.

 That he will take to the HOF first ballot. Great coach. Even his bad moments are good.

[sweetsurrender]

From reading your posts on this forum over the years, I knew you lacked self confidence but I did not think it went so far is that you make your decisions based on what other people think.

 

Please, I converse with Pat fans a lot because of that I am very familiar with logical fallacy in debate (many pat fans use that all the time).  But please explain how it is in all my posts.

 

When have I ever stated I have an issue with the Pats?  Most Pat fans on this board that know me, know I think BB is one of the best coaches in the modern era (which is another point I will mention later).  The Pats cheated at got punished.  I do have an issue with Goodell destroying the evidence but I thought Goodell was a putz before Spygate.  What I have the biggest issue with is Pat fans that portray it as no big deal, try to justify what the Pats did, act like everyone did it or that what he didn't was completely within bounds if only he had moved his camera.  And I believe I have stated that several times.

 

Now back to BB.  I think BB is a brilliant football mind, he does things to gain a competitive advantage that many coaches don't even think about.  So this memo was sent out... 31 other teams knew what it meant but BB did not?  I don't believe that, he's too smart. 2nd, everything BB does as a coach is done to put his team in the best position to win the game, knowing all that to think that he would do something that would risk his standing as a coach and the reputation of the team for something that only saved a little bit of time and provided no advantage just does not make any sense at all.  Every aspect of football is about risk analysis and the scenario painted about why it was done just does not fly when comparing the benefits (as put force by league talking points and Pat fans) to the risks involved.

You act like BB knew in advance the media storm and penalty that was coming. I suppose hindsight is 20/20. But even Mangini who blew the whistle has admitted that he wished he never did it because he did not think it was that big of a deal. and never dreamt it would blow up to the proportions that it did.  The fact is the Pats were a modern dynasty at the time and Goddell had just become Commish. He sent the memo that was ignored by Bill which he admitted too. Thinking there was some grand scheme going on is a bit presumptuous after the fact by either Bill or the Commish. I think destroying the tapes was a mistake but how he could he let them go given the Pats had turned them when asked and he said what was on them was what the team had told them. He was a new Commish and probably wished he had done things differently even probably the penalty.

[Coffeedrinker]

In order to turn all of it around in a matter of minutes, you would need around 5 "technical" people and at least one "football" person to interpret what they're seeing. 

 

Also, regarding film... I get what you're saying but the problem is there were no smart phones in 2001, 2003, and 2004 my friend! No tablets. TiVO existed but DVRs were not in every home. If we're discussing the impact of Spygate on the Patriots' success, the technology from 10-14 years ago needs to be considered. 

 

The images Manning and other guys study on the sidelines aren't LITERALLY Polaroids (at least not anymore), but as the article stated, they're from still cameras mounted high up in the stadium. Not from video. That was the only point. 

So you don't think the organization would hire 6 people to do it?

 

I almost made a comment about the technology being vastly different back then.  As far as the smart phones and all that that is true, but digital camera, digital video recording equipment and players had been around for 6 or 7 years at that point.  What we had in our homes is not relevant to what was available to organizations (or wealthy coaches) if they wanted to spend 10-20 grand for the equipment.

 

Lastly, the article didn't state that, it just stated the the NFL is just now catching up with the times where players will be able to watch video streams on tablets on the sidelines  And that is true, but the camera that provides those screen shots are video cameras and have been for quite a while (a friend of mine has provided audio visual equipment to the Colts since Jim took over).

 

But let's assume old technology, 6 guys and a recorded broadcast.  It could still be compared and sync'd while the other team is on offense.  An average NFL play is 5 seconds.  Even with a tape that has to be spooled forward or back, it would take... 12-15 minutes to sync a series, tops.  With commercial time-outs, injuries, play stoppage etc.  Someone could have the entire first half done, shortly after everyone gets to the locker room.  Hand the report to the coordinators and done.

[Coffeedrinker]

You act like BB knew in advance the media storm and penalty that was coming. I suppose hindsight is 20/20. But even Mangini who blew the whistle has admitted that he wished he never did it because he did not think it was that big of a deal. and never dreamt it would blow up to the proportions that it did.  The fact is the Pats were a modern dynasty at the time and Goddell had just become Commish. He sent the memo that was ignored by Bill which he admitted too. Thinking there was some grand scheme going on is a bit presumptuous after the fact by either Bill or the Commish. I think destroying the tapes was a mistake but how he could he let them go given the Pats had turned them when asked and he said what was on them was what the team had told them. He was a new Commish and probably wished he had done things differently even probably the penalty.

Nope, I'm sure he didn't know the extent but he knew if caught there would be repercussions.

[GoPats]

So you don't think the organization would hire 6 people to do it?

 

I almost made a comment about the technology being vastly different back then.  As far as the smart phones and all that that is true, but digital camera, digital video recording equipment and players had been around for 6 or 7 years at that point.  What we had in our homes is not relevant to what was available to organizations (or wealthy coaches) if they wanted to spend 10-20 grand for the equipment.

 

Lastly, the article didn't state that, it just stated the the NFL is just now catching up with the times where players will be able to watch video streams on tablets on the sidelines  And that is true, but the camera that provides those screen shots are video cameras and have been for quite a while (a friend of mine has provided audio visual equipment to the Colts since Jim took over).

 

But let's assume old technology, 6 guys and a recorded broadcast.  It could still be compared and sync'd while the other team is on offense.  An average NFL play is 5 seconds.  Even with a tape that has to be spooled forward or back, it would take... 12-15 minutes to sync a series, tops.  With commercial time-outs, injuries, play stoppage etc.  Someone could have the entire first half done, shortly after everyone gets to the locker room.  Hand the report to the coordinators and done.

 

What you described here is not impossible, but we'll never know either way, unfortunately. I just find it all to be a little too tinfoil-hat for me to buy it. If the Patriots started going 8-8 and missing the playoffs after 2007, any Patriots fan would be hard pressed to disagree with you. But all they've done since "Spygate" broke is go 18-1 (one helmet catch away from what would be the best season, undisputed, in NFL history), appear in two SBs, and two more AFCCGs. It's hard to look at the results of the before and after and say that it had a big impact or was a big advantage. Most will agree those 2001-2004 Patriots teams were better, if not more balanced, than the more recent years. Yet they've won more games, supposedly without the aid of the Spygate film. 

 

I guess this is where the road ends man! Thanks for the spirited discussion. Always got respect for ya.