Eagles's Cary Williams: Patriots are 'cheaters'

[Vance]

One that is in a court of law, the NFL can hand down punishment based on whatever evidence they want to use.

 

The NFL got the proof it needed, that is why they handed down some the largest fines in NFL history and took a 1st round draft pick.  Then, literally, burned all the evidence to protect the integrity of the game.

 

Only after the evidence was burned did the talk begin, around the league, that it didn't help them.

 

I wasn't talking to or about the NFL, I was telling that to a guy on a forum. Modus operandi for any civilized people is that the burden of proof is on the accuser.

[Vance]

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

 

What? I'm saying, if you accuse someone of something, it's on YOU to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did it - it's not on the accused to prove that they DIDN'T do something. That's how a freaking civilized nation works.

[Coffeedrinker]

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. 

It's all good.  And, yes BB is still a great coach and his teams usually have very talent down to about player #40 and sometimes beyond and therefore they are going to do well.  That does not mean they did not gain an advantage from it (had to get that in there).

 

As far as the success before and after... that just means BB has gotten better at recording the signals without getting caught. ;)

[sweetsurrender]

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

Sure but the memo was sent to every team and was about camera equipment location. No way he saw the fines and draft pick and the media hoopla. It was probably something he thought he could continue to get away with and would have had the Pats camera man not gotten into a scuffle with the Jets personnel. I think it was more of a perfect storm. Mangini had bad blood between him and the Pats. Figured this was a way to make Bill look bad and had no idea it would blow up like it did. I mean Bill was doing it for a whole year after the memo as I believe it was sent at the start of the 2006 so he may have disregarded it arrogantly. And remember this was the first real issue Goodell had come at him and he began his tenure saying he was going to tighten up the league.

[Coffeedrinker]

I wasn't talking to or about the NFL, I was telling that to a guy on a forum. Modus operandi for any civilized people is that the burden of proof is on the accuser.

How silly of me to think you were talking about the NFL in a football forum discussing the actions of the NFL.

[Kyle]

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.

 

Lets say your theory is right.  If that was the case, it would be REALLY BAD NEWS.  A cheating scandal like that would damage the NFL immensely.  If I was the commissioner and discovered something like that, I would destroy the evidence.      

[Shane Bond]

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

No doubt he will. I have said many times in this forum, he is my favorite coach.

[Shane Bond]

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. 

As you have mentioned earlier, its probably few plays of Pats being 5-0 or 0-5 in SBs. 

 

With aid, all those few plays is all we need between a defeat and a victory. 

[Vance]

How silly of me to think you were talking about the NFL in a football forum discussing the actions of the NFL.

 

You are just so lost, poor thing.

[Jiggy]

You are just so lost, poor thing.

lol it sounds like you are the one whos lost.

 

you said "burden of proof lies with accuser" which isnt applicable to this situation because this is the nfl not a court of law.

 

when coffee drinker explained how that isnt really applicable to this situation you backpeddled and tried to say you were talking about a completely different situation (in a courtroom not the nfl) and your tone seemed to indicate that it was sillly of him to assume that you wouldn't randomly veer off topic and discuss something completely different.

 

soo how is he lost?

 

 

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. 

 

he probably still does it and doesnt get caught. i remember in 03 ty law and rodney harrison magically jumping routes and knowing where the ball was going to be seemingly pre snap. lots of players have said the same thing.

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."

 

dont you think a lot of casual fans would stop watching football if they figured out that the most dominant team of the decade was all a fugasi because they cheated? i quit watching the nba entirely when i saw an interview with a ref who got caught gambling and he threw other refs under the bus and stated they do or dont call fouls based on their personal feelings towards x player. it already confirmed suspicions that the nba is not completely legit.

 

also, it is important in life not to believe everything we hear from public figures. if i believed everything mitt romney said i wouldve voted for him, but i didnt want to vote for someone who did the exact thing that has screwed this country up and that is kick americans to the curb and send manufacturing jobs to china (his own businessses).i would recomend you dont believe everything you hear, even from someone as morally infallible as roger goodell...

[Vance]

lol it sounds like you are the one whos lost.

 

you said "burden of proof lies with accuser" which isnt applicable to this situation because this is the nfl not a court of law.

 

I was talking about a GUY ON A FORUM telling Viri that HE has to prove that the Patriots gained no advantage. Nah, THAT GUY has to prove that the Patriots DID have an advantage.

 

Burden. Of. Proof. Is. On. The. Accuser. Which. In. This. Case. Is. Coffeedrinker.

 

Make freaking sense now?

[amfootball]

dont you think a lot of casual fans would stop watching football if they figured out that the most dominant team of the decade was all a fugasi because they cheated? i quit watching the nba entirely when i saw an interview with a ref who got caught gambling and he threw other refs under the bus and stated they do or dont call fouls based on their personal feelings towards x player. it already confirmed suspicions that the nba is not completely legit.

 

also, it is important in life not to believe everything we hear from public figures. if i believed everything mitt romney said i wouldve voted for him, but i didnt want to vote for someone who did the exact thing that has screwed this country up and that is kick americans to the curb and send manufacturing jobs to china (his own businessses).i would recomend you dont believe everything you hear, even from someone as morally infallible as roger goodell...

I think most fans understand pro sports are not run on the up and up. There is corruption at level of competitive sports from little league up to the pro leagues. If the steroid era did not make fans leave, nothing will IMO.

 

In terms of spygate, it is also possible that Roger overacted and handed out a penalty that was not reflective of the violation committed given his penchant for wanting to be the strong arm of the law. This is why he is getting a lot of backlash for the Ray Rice suspension as most expected a much heavier penalty given his past punishments. And of course with spygate, we have the Pats results post-spygate which would indicate that Goodell did in fact overact given the team has been more successful since he handed out his punishment.

[Jiggy]

I think most fans understand pro sports are not run on the up and up. There is corruption at level of competitive sports from little league up to the pro leagues. If the steroid era did not make fans leave, nothing will IMO.

 

In terms of spygate, it is also possible that Roger overacted and handed out a penalty that was not reflective of the violation committed given his penchant for wanting to be the strong arm of the law. This is why he is getting a lot of backlash for the Ray Rice suspension as most expected a much heavier penalty given his past punishments. And of course with spygate, we have the Pats results post-spygate which would indicate that Goodell did in fact overact given the team has been more successful since he handed out his punishment.

 

 

I was talking about a GUY ON A FORUM telling Viri that HE has to prove that the Patriots gained no advantage. Nah, THAT GUY has to prove that the Patriots DID have an advantage.

 

Burden. Of. Proof. Is. On. The. Accuser. Which. In. This. Case. Is. Coffeedrinker.

 

Make freaking sense now?

it was already proven it gave them an advantage. thats why they received one of the biggest sanctions in the history of the nfl. goodell can say whatever he wants, but theres a reason he immediately burned the evidence. I dont want to hear "oh he burned it because it wasnt a big deal". thats laughable. if goodell wants to lie and downplay it to protect the game then meh. you can believe him if you want, but spygate was a big deal. 

 

the point is simple, if you know what the defense is doing pre snap, its easy to audible out and flood coverage zones to isolate your guy 

 

if you guys want to outright deny spygate was a big deal, look at the sanction. actions do speak louder than words. if they werent deciphering those signals in game, why were they taping them?

 

You may say oh its because they used the camera and people have been stealing signals for years. Theres a reason there was a special rule put in place to not use the camera. It makes it immensely easier to steal signals. Its like when a 5 year old walks up and says "im going to push the house over with my bare hands" you dont care because its impossible. go ahead. Thats why they didnt care that people were writing them down. It would be sooooo much harder to decipher a signal by writing it down, it borders on impossible. btw if you watch how the 3 people give signals youll know there is no practical way you could write all that info down while watching the signal. I mean how would you describe that while writing? "well uh the first person moved his hand sideways then up and down then flashed 3 fingers, 2 fingerrs while moving diagonally while doing this etc" let alone writing down 3 other decoys at the exact same moment to figure out which was the signal. all in the lapse of the play. Impossible. Now with a camera? Much easier. That is why the rule was put in place. Just to address that issue because i remember you saying earlier AM, how it was okay that they cheated by using a camera because people used to write down signals. Using cameras and video to steal and decipher signals is immensely easier and to protect the integrity of the game rules were put in place. The pats did not care and continued to cheat.

 

that is why they recieved one of (if not) the largest sanction in nfl history, not because of goodells ego. 

[Flying Elvis]

Gotta love him!

[The Old Crow]

Gotta love him!

I think that video was from a UHF station. I had to turn my antenna ears to get some sound ! Lol

[ViriLudant]

it was already proven it gave them an advantage. thats why they received one of the biggest sanctions in the history of the nfl. goodell can say whatever he wants, but theres a reason he immediately burned the evidence. I dont want to hear "oh he burned it because it wasnt a big deal". thats laughable. if goodell wants to lie and downplay it to protect the game then meh. you can believe him if you want, but spygate was a big deal.

the point is simple, if you know what the defense is doing pre snap, its easy to audible out and flood coverage zones to isolate your guy

if you guys want to outright deny spygate was a big deal, look at the sanction. actions do speak louder than words. if they werent deciphering those signals in game, why were they taping them?

You may say oh its because they used the camera and people have been stealing signals for years. Theres a reason there was a special rule put in place to not use the camera. It makes it immensely easier to steal signals. Its like when a 5 year old walks up and says "im going to push the house over with my bare hands" you dont care because its impossible. go ahead. Thats why they didnt care that people were writing them down. It would be sooooo much harder to decipher a signal by writing it down, it borders on impossible. btw if you watch how the 3 people give signals youll know there is no practical way you could write all that info down while watching the signal. I mean how would you describe that while writing? "well uh the first person moved his hand sideways then up and down then flashed 3 fingers, 2 fingerrs while moving diagonally while doing this etc" let alone writing down 3 other decoys at the exact same moment to figure out which was the signal. all in the lapse of the play. Impossible. Now with a camera? Much easier. That is why the rule was put in place. Just to address that issue because i remember you saying earlier AM, how it was okay that they cheated by using a camera because people used to write down signals. Using cameras and video to steal and decipher signals is immensely easier and to protect the integrity of the game rules were put in place. The pats did not care and continued to cheat.

that is why they recieved one of (if not) the largest sanction in nfl history, not because of goodells ego.

So, your answer then is no, you can't prove that the Patriots gained an advantage.

That's what I figured.

[GoPats]

As you have mentioned earlier, its probably few plays of Pats being 5-0 or 0-5 in SBs. 

 

With aid, all those few plays is all we need between a defeat and a victory. 

 

Intellectually (and mathematically) speaking, you can't rule anything out. But it's a complete stretch I think to say, "Well the Patriots haven't won a Super Bowl Since Spygate, so it must have had a big impact." Lots of teams haven't won a Super Bowl since 2004. Most of 'em, actually.

 

As Colts fans who watched your team dominate for a decade and walk away with a single championship, I know you all understand how difficult it is for a team to win a championship. That would be like someone saying, "Well the Colts were so good through the 2000s in the regular season, but they sucked in the playoffs, so they must have been cheating in the games they won." It's not that simple and I would think most hard-core NFL fans would get that. 

 

 

he probably still does it and doesnt get caught. i remember in 03 ty law and rodney harrison magically jumping routes and knowing where the ball was going to be seemingly pre snap. lots of players have said the same thing.

 

 

This is a good example of what I mentioned earlier about people understanding the topic. 

 

Defensive play calls are no longer signaled in by a coach. They're radioed in, just like the offense. 

 

Not trying to pick on you or pick a fight here, but if you're going to present an opinion like that without having a solid grasp of the actual facts, expect it to be poked full of holes. When someone does this, to me anyway, it kills their credibility on the topic, and means that they have an opinion and are trying to build facts around that opinion, instead of the other way around, as it should be. 

[Shane Bond]

Intellectually (and mathematically) speaking, you can't rule anything out. But it's a complete stretch I think to say, "Well the Patriots haven't won a Super Bowl Since Spygate, so it must have had a big impact." Lots of teams haven't won a Super Bowl since 2004. Most of 'em, actually.

 

As Colts fans who watched your team dominate for a decade and walk away with a single championship, I know you all understand how difficult it is for a team to win a championship. That would be like someone saying, "Well the Colts were so good through the 2000s in the regular season, but they sucked in the playoffs, so they must have been cheating in the games they won." It's not that simple and I would think most hard-core NFL fans would get that. 

 

 

 

Point of emphasis is few plays which makes a difference. That is all it takes.

 

All the 5 SBs by Pats the margin of victory or defeat is less than 5 points. Pretty much sums up with one or 2 play which can change the outcome of the game.

 

Your point for regular season vs playoffs, the margin of errors shrinks in the playoffs with all good teams playing. Not the case with regular season and its always a team effort for the victory.

[amfootball]

Point of emphasis is few plays which makes a difference. That is all it takes.

 

All the 5 SBs by Pats the margin of victory or defeat is less than 5 points. Pretty much sums up with one or 2 play which can change the outcome of the game.

 

Your point for regular season vs playoffs, the margin of errors shrinks in the playoffs with all good teams playing. Not the case with regular season and its always a team effort for the victory.

I think it was Willie McGinest who said that if the Pats really knew what the Rams were going to run they would have beaten them 44-3. In other words, none of the Super Bowls would have been close. And of course post-spygate their SBs were close as well so really no difference.

[GoPats]

Point of emphasis is few plays which makes a difference. That is all it takes.

 

All the 5 SBs by Pats the margin of victory or defeat is less than 5 points. Pretty much sums up with one or 2 play which can change the outcome of the game.

 

Your point for regular season vs playoffs, the margin of errors shrinks in the playoffs with all good teams playing. Not the case with regular season and its always a team effort for the victory.

 

Like I said earlier you can't completely dismiss the possibility. But it's highly unlikely that it's the reason they were 3-0 pre-Spygate and 0-2 post-Spygate. 

 

Don't forget, this was always about filming the other team's defensive plays. Which someone needs to explain to Marshall Faulk.  ;)  Even in a perfect scenario for Patriots haters, the defensive effort against the Rams was not impacted at all, zero percent, by Spygate. The Rams just got pushed around and had their butts handed to them by a tougher, grittier team, and Martz refused to run the football even when the Patriots basically showed their hand. Martz wanted to win it his way and he wasn't budging. No matter how much whining Faulk does, that won't change. 

[Shane Bond]

Like I said earlier you can't completely dismiss the possibility. But it's highly unlikely that it's the reason they were 3-0 pre-Spygate and 0-2 post-Spygate. 

 

 

Or likely 

[Jiggy]

Like I said earlier you can't completely dismiss the possibility. But it's highly unlikely that it's the reason they were 3-0 pre-Spygate and 0-2 post-Spygate. 

 

Don't forget, this was always about filming the other team's defensive plays. Which someone needs to explain to Marshall Faulk.  ;)  Even in a perfect scenario for Patriots haters, the defensive effort against the Rams was not impacted at all, zero percent, by Spygate. The Rams just got pushed around and had their butts handed to them by a tougher, grittier team, and Martz refused to run the football even when the Patriots basically showed their hand. Martz wanted to win it his way and he wasn't budging. No matter how much whining Faulk does, that won't change. 

it just really is annoying when people can act like they know everythingg and call you out on trivial things and act like nothing you say has merit because you mistyped one thing,

 

no, the pats did steal offensive signals too. learn what youre talking about, because it really does make you look silly and quite ignorant to spew misinformation. especially right after calling someone else out on something far more trivial (that was more of a joke than anything)

 

Walsh sends tapes in advance[edit]

In compliance with the May 8 deadline, Walsh sent eight separate videotapes to the league offices in advance of the meeting:^[11][50]

• One tape from the Miami Dolphins game on September 24, 2000
• Two tapes, one offensive signals and one defensive signals, from the Dolphins game on October 7, 2001
• One tape from the Buffalo Bills game on November 11, 2001
• One tape from the Cleveland Browns game on December 9, 2001
• Two tapes from the January 27, 2002, AFC Championship Game against the Pittsburgh Steelers
• One tape, from a "third camera", from the San Diego Chargers game on September 29, 2002

 

actually the 3-0 vs 0-2 arguement is pretty legit. The pats with an arguably worse roster beat a team no one thought they could in the rams, but the pats with the greatest offense in history and an 18-0 record couldnt beat a giants team that had no business being there? 

[Guest nflfan014]

The unhealthy obsession non-Pats fans have with the Pats amazes me.  Can only imagine how bad it would get if they won another SB before Brady/Belichick hang it up. 

[Dustin]

The unhealthy obsession non-Pats fans have with the Pats amazes me. Can only imagine how bad it would get if they won another SB before Brady/Belichick hang it up.

Not worth worrying about. It's not gonna happen.

[Jiggy]

The unhealthy obsession non-Pats fans have with the Pats amazes me.  Can only imagine how bad it would get if they won another SB before Brady/Belichick hang it up. 

brady cant even hit wide open recieivers in stride anymore on passes of 20+ yards lol

 

peace

[Guest nflfan014]

Not worth worrying about. It's not gonna happen.

 

We have a time traveler here.

 

Also, if you're so sure they aren't going to win, why do you likely spend 3 hours every Sunday watching them and praying they lose?

[Guest nflfan014]

Now I know what it feels like to be a Yankees fan back in the late 90s/early 00s lol.  I remember Yankee fans saying the same things to me and other Red Sox fans back then, and if they lost, it was just as good as the Red Sox winning.

 

It's kind of flattering as a Patriots fan given the 1-15 teams we had back in the day lol.

[The Old Crow]

Now I know what it feels like to be a Yankees fan back in the late 90s/early 00s lol. I remember Yankee fans saying the same things to me and other Red Sox fans back then, and if they lost, it was just as good as the Red Sox winning.

It's kind of flattering as a Patriots fan given the 1-15 teams we had back in the day lol.

The difference is the Yankees and Red Sox had competitive advantages with their TV networks and 200 million dollar bloated payrolls. At least NFL teams have salary cap restrictions giving

More credence to Super Bowl champions.

[ViriLudant]

it just really is annoying when people can act like they know everythingg and call you out on trivial things and act like nothing you say has merit because you mistyped one thing,

 

no, the pats did steal offensive signals too. learn what youre talking about, because it really does make you look silly and quite ignorant to spew misinformation. especially right after calling someone else out on something far more trivial (that was more of a joke than anything)

 

Walsh sends tapes in advance[edit]

In compliance with the May 8 deadline, Walsh sent eight separate videotapes to the league offices in advance of the meeting:^[11][50]

• One tape from the Miami Dolphins game on September 24, 2000
• Two tapes, one offensive signals and one defensive signals, from the Dolphins game on October 7, 2001
• One tape from the Buffalo Bills game on November 11, 2001
• One tape from the Cleveland Browns game on December 9, 2001
• Two tapes from the January 27, 2002, AFC Championship Game against the Pittsburgh Steelers
• One tape, from a "third camera", from the San Diego Chargers game on September 29, 2002

 

actually the 3-0 vs 0-2 arguement is pretty legit. The pats with an arguably worse roster beat a team no one thought they could in the rams, but the pats with the greatest offense in history and an 18-0 record couldnt beat a giants team that had no business being there? 

Too bad those aren't correct facts, eh?

 

Know why?

 

Riddle me this:  when did the NFL begin to allow offenses to RADIO in their plays?

 

Oh, that's right, 1994.

 

So, no, as usual, you're dead wrong.  Offenses have been sending their plays since '94. 

 

Keep trying. 

[Guest nflfan014]

The difference is the Yankees and Red Sox had competitive advantages with their TV networks and 200 million dollar bloated payrolls. At least NFL teams have salary cap restrictions giving

More credence to Super Bowl champions.

 

That, and one game elimination makes it that much harder to win it all in the NFL. 

 

The 01-04 Pats teams were just stacked defensively.  The defense got old, other teams started getting better, and if you ask me, Belichick spent too much time trying to copy the Colts instead of paying attention to the defensive side of the ball.

 

The Giants beat them twice because they were a nightmare matchup for the Pats and had a much better defense.  Defense and timely offense wins championships.  The Giants used the same formula the 01-04 Pats used. 

 

It has nothing to do with this Harriet the Spy crap people are talking about.  The Giants as a team were just better than the Pats both times.

[The Old Crow]

That, and one game elimination makes it that much harder to win it all in the NFL.

The 01-04 Pats teams were just stacked defensively. The defense got old, other teams started getting better, and if you ask me, Belichick spent too much time trying to copy the Colts instead of paying attention to the defensive side of the ball.

The Giants beat them twice because they were a nightmare matchup for the Pats and had a much better defense. Defense and timely offense wins championships. The Giants used the same formula the 01-04 Pats used.

It has nothing to do with this Harriet the Spy crap people are talking about. The Giants as a team were just better than the Pats both times.

.

I don't know if the Giants were better, or it was a bad match- up for the Patriots

[Guest nflfan014]

.

I don't know if the Giants were better, or it was a bad match- up for the Patriots

 

Really bad matchup, definitely.  Even the game we beat them in the regular season in 2007, they went toe to toe with us.

[Jiggy]

Too bad those aren't correct facts, eh?

Know why?

Riddle me this: when did the NFL begin to allow offenses to RADIO in their plays?

Oh, that's right, 1994.

So, no, as usual, you're dead wrong. Offenses have been sending their plays since '94.

Keep trying.

Multiple sources say Walsh sent offensive signals. You don't make much sense, coffee drinker explained to you exActly how stealing signals benefits a team but you keep jabbering on about how no one has proved the pats gained an advantage...if you're looking for actual physical evidence you may want to read up up on spygate.... A huge controversy was goodwill destroyed the tape, not sure if u knew that. If the tapes were benign and helped make the pats case, they would've been made Available. They weren't benign And they got a huge sanction. ThAts why a worse pats team beAt the greatest show on turf, but then when they have a superior team/roster lose to the lowly giants..... So you can either offer a rebuttal or explain why coffee drinkers explanation isn't good or give up this garbage argument that since I do t have the tapes I can't speculate on spygate

So really there no point discussing with you, you're just lying about how u "won" the Arguement while not even bothering To type any rebutAtLl whatsoever, pretty childish.

You also have never answered why Bellichick devoted all that time to commit rule infractions at a huge risk for no reason at all?

Game.

Set.

Match.

[ViriLudant]

A bit tired of your ignorance, Jiggy.

Many NFL teams recorded other teams' signals.

Or perhaps you can explain why ALL 32 teams received Goodell's memo ?

And you're wrong per usual. No offensive signals were recorded, because THEY HAD BEEN RADIOED IN FOR YEARS.

You clearly know nothing of this issue.

[Jiggy]

A bit tired of your ignorance, Jiggy.

Many NFL teams recorded other teams' signals.

Or perhaps you can explain why ALL 32 teams received Goodell's memo ?

And you're wrong per usual. No offensive signals were recorded, because THEY HAD BEEN RADIOED IN FOR YEARS.

You clearly know nothing of this issue.

I see you're not going to explain how coffee drinker was wrong

Or why Bellichick did it for no reason?

And only the patriotS were caught cheating so not everyone did it like you are making up.

Game

Set

Match

[Jiggy]

 

The footage was not used in-game. Bill has been doing it forever - he admitted that as it was not against the rules. The issue was the location of the camera on the sidelines.

 

 

A bit tired of your ignorance, Jiggy.

Many NFL teams recorded other teams' signals.


And you're wrong per usual. No offensive signals were recorded, because THEY HAD BEEN RADIOED IN FOR YEARS.

You clearly know nothing of this issue.

 

 

 

Those are still photos not game film. You still have to get all the videos from the camera men - watch them and then try to sync up with the photos in just 12 minutes. There is no earthly possibility of getting much done beyond maybe one or two formations and even then teams change their signals at halftime. Charlie Weiss, the Pats OC who was with Notre Dame when spygate broke said the taping was done for R&D. It just made the process quicker to have the signals on tape vs someone writing them down from the stands which is how they used to do it.

 

 

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

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 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. 

 

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

 

 

 

 

This is a good example of what I mentioned earlier about people understanding the topic. 

 

Defensive play calls are no longer signaled in by a coach. They're radioed in, just like the offense. 

 

Not trying to pick on you or pick a fight here, but if you're going to present an opinion like that without having a solid grasp of the actual facts, expect it to be poked full of holes. When someone does this, to me anyway, it kills their credibility on the topic, and means that they have an opinion and are trying to build facts around that opinion, instead of the other way around, as it should be. 

 

 

here ya go

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?id=3387401

 

 

From Day 1 of the Spygate saga in September, the controversy over New England's illicit videotaping practices has centered on the Patriots' efforts to steal their opponents' defensive signals. But the tapes delivered via FedEx to NFL headquarters in New York on Thursday morning also include evidence of an effort by New England to steal offensive signals, which would broaden the extent of the team's surveillance operation.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and staff members began viewing the eight tapes within hours of their long-awaited delivery, in anticipation of Tuesday's scheduled interview with former Patriots video assistant Matt Walsh. As part of an indemnification pact reached last month with the league, Walsh agreed to turn over any videotapes or related materials he had from his tenure with the team.

Perhaps the surprise entry on the list of videotaping documents Walsh turned over to the league was tape No. 3, labeled "OFF Signals" from New England's game against the Miami Dolphins on Oct. 7, 2001. That is the only tape labeled as such on a copy of the list obtained by ESPN.com. Walsh's attorney, Michael Levy, confirmed it was the lone footage in Walsh's possession of offensive coaches' signaling from the sidelines.

 

"[it] contains shots of Miami's offensive coaches signaling Miami's offensive players, followed by a shot from the end zone camera of Miami's offensive play, followed by a shot of Miami's offensive coaches signaling Miami's offensive players for the next play, then edited to be followed by a shot of the subsequent Miami offensive play," Levy said of the tape. "And that pattern repeats throughout the entire tape, with occasional cuts to the scoreboard."

 

One of the eight tapes in the package was shot by someone other than Walsh. It is a Sept. 29, 2002, game against San Diego, which was shot after Walsh was promoted from the video department. That tape captures just the coaches on the sideline, and the scoreboard before the game action is edited in.

 

The advancing sophistication in New England's videotaping practices apparently is also evident on the tapes, which begin with a Sept. 25, 2000, game against Miami and run through that 2002 game against San Diego. It's also obvious throughout that the video shooter has one job on game day: to capture the opposing team's sideline coaches.

In one of the last tapes that Walsh shot -- the 2002 AFC Championship Game against the Pittsburgh Steelers -- the finished product includes sideline footage of the Pittsburgh coaches sending in signals, followed by a scan of the scoreboard that captures down, distance and game time, followed by two separate shots of the ensuing play, one from above the press box and the other from an end zone camera.

"The other seven tapes show the final product, which is a series of coaches' signals, followed by the play, followed by coaches' signals and then the next play -- all lined up one after another," said Levy, who represents Walsh. "So the final videotapes contain the opposing coaches' signals lined up directly with the play that was run, one after another."

 

Specter has been critical of the NFL for destroying evidence turned over in September by New England, including six other tapes and notes from other taped games. Although those tapes only date back to the 2006 season, Aiello, the NFL spokesperson, said Thursday the notes dated to at least the 2002 season.

[Dustin]

We have a time traveler here.

Also, if you're so sure they aren't going to win, why do you likely spend 3 hours every Sunday watching them and praying they lose?

I don't. I know whatever amount of wins they get in the regular season doesn't matter, because they'll just choke in the postseason.

[ViriLudant]

Once again , you're highlighting your ignorance.

Your list there? It's what the habitual list Matt Walsh CLAIMED was on the tapes.

Nothing was proven.

Thanks for playing .

I love how you IGNORE the fact that offensive plays have been radioed in since 1994.

Perhaps you should talk with someone about this unreasoned hatred and envy.

here ya go

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?id=3387401

From Day 1 of the Spygate saga in September, the controversy over New England's illicit videotaping practices has centered on the Patriots' efforts to steal their opponents' defensive signals. But the tapes delivered via FedEx to NFL headquarters in New York on Thursday morning also include evidence of an effort by New England to steal offensive signals, which would broaden the extent of the team's surveillance operation.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and staff members began viewing the eight tapes within hours of their long-awaited delivery, in anticipation of Tuesday's scheduled interview with former Patriots video assistant Matt Walsh. As part of an indemnification pact reached last month with the league, Walsh agreed to turn over any videotapes or related materials he had from his tenure with the team.

Perhaps the surprise entry on the list of videotaping documents Walsh turned over to the league was tape No. 3, labeled "OFF Signals" from New England's game against the Miami Dolphins on Oct. 7, 2001. That is the only tape labeled as such on a copy of the list obtained by ESPN.com. Walsh's attorney, Michael Levy, confirmed it was the lone footage in Walsh's possession of offensive coaches' signaling from the sidelines.

"[it] contains shots of Miami's offensive coaches signaling Miami's offensive players, followed by a shot from the end zone camera of Miami's offensive play, followed by a shot of Miami's offensive coaches signaling Miami's offensive players for the next play, then edited to be followed by a shot of the subsequent Miami offensive play," Levy said of the tape. "And that pattern repeats throughout the entire tape, with occasional cuts to the scoreboard."

One of the eight tapes in the package was shot by someone other than Walsh. It is a Sept. 29, 2002, game against San Diego, which was shot after Walsh was promoted from the video department. That tape captures just the coaches on the sideline, and the scoreboard before the game action is edited in.

The advancing sophistication in New England's videotaping practices apparently is also evident on the tapes, which begin with a Sept. 25, 2000, game against Miami and run through that 2002 game against San Diego. It's also obvious throughout that the video shooter has one job on game day: to capture the opposing team's sideline coaches.

In one of the last tapes that Walsh shot -- the 2002 AFC Championship Game against the Pittsburgh Steelers -- the finished product includes sideline footage of the Pittsburgh coaches sending in signals, followed by a scan of the scoreboard that captures down, distance and game time, followed by two separate shots of the ensuing play, one from above the press box and the other from an end zone camera.

"The other seven tapes show the final product, which is a series of coaches' signals, followed by the play, followed by coaches' signals and then the next play -- all lined up one after another," said Levy, who represents Walsh. "So the final videotapes contain the opposing coaches' signals lined up directly with the play that was run, one after another."

Specter has been critical of the NFL for destroying evidence turned over in September by New England, including six other tapes and notes from other taped games. Although those tapes only date back to the 2006 season, Aiello, the NFL spokesperson, said Thursday the notes dated to at least the 2002 season.

[sweetsurrender]

I see you're not going to explain how coffee drinker was wrong

Or why Bellichick did it for no reason?

And only the patriotS were caught cheating so not everyone did it like you are making up.

Game

Set

Match

Oh man. You really need to stop posting already.

[Nadine]

locked this thread because people cannot stop calling each other ignorant.