Something was proven to me about the Pats via Super Bowl

[bills44]

i used to be in this camp. i really did.

 

look - i have been watching football for 20 years. there are people here that have been watching it longer than that. there are people that post here that have played ball on the college level. hell, there are people here that play a lot of madden on their playstation that understand the game better than me. but let me say this:

 

i live in new england. i grow up in new england. im a bills fan. ive seen 99% of their games since turning 21 (old enough to go to bars with direct tv) and before that, about 50% of their games. but new england? man, i've probably seen more patriots games than any 3 of their most bandwagon, fair-weather, wes welkah should be cut patriot fans COMBINED.

 

my only point is... OBJECTIVELY... i have never... EVER EVER EVER... seen football played like the patriots played it between 2001/2002, and 2003/2004. there's winning good, theres winning ugly, theres winning lucky, and then theres just winning when you have absolutely no business winning because you know what play is coming next. if it was black jack, they were hitting on 17 and getting a 3 every time. if it was poker, they were going all in on a pair of 7s after the 1st card, and then getting their 4th 7 on the river - EVERY GAME. they were beating peyton in his prime... in ways that were just... magical. after they beat the steelers for the second time in the conference championship, steelers wideouts after the game said PATRIOT PLAYERS WERE CALLING OUT THEIR PLAYS AT THE LINE OF SCRIMMAGE!

 

is brady the best qb in the league, and the best qb of the last decade? yes.

is belly the best coach in the league, and the best coach of the last decade? without question.

did the patriots cheat, and did that help them win superbowls? yes.

 

these facts are not mutually exclusive from one another. and i used to say "i wish the bills could cheat like that." but no. no i dont. because the more ive read about it, the more ive learned about it, the less i want that stigma for my organization. because maybe some people will forgive and forget - but there is a LARGE segment of the football world, including current and former players, who feel that the patriots violated the very spirit of the game. a game that we are clearly quite passionate about.

 

its truly unforgivable, and they deserve all of the bad fate that befalls them.

 

Great post. I can think of at least 2 posters who will be outraged by this, though

[Doc]

The advantages of spygate are so over exaggerated that its not even funny. Truth is, every team has a endless amount of film of schemes of their opponents. The likelihood that they found something that the other film doesn't already show is minimal at best, and even then it would be maybe a play or two that they may not even run in a game. If you talk to any person with any knowledge of game planning for a football game at a high level they will tell you more was made of it than it really is and lots of teams have done things like this.

 

The reason they won those games is very very simple...more talent in the FO and on the field in the SB years than in the more recent years. For one, the D was substantially better back then and has been a sore spot for sometime now.

 

Lets also be REALISTIC here...Literally TWO PLAYS cost NE the both SB victories. In the first one, it was the dropped INT just before the Tyree miracle catch (or you can even say the fluke catch by a WR who couldnt even make the squad the following season despite being the SB hero) cost them a victory in that one. In this last one, the Welker drop would have been a NE win if he had held onto that ball. And thats a catch he makes 8 out of 10 times. So, outside of two plays, NE would be 5-0 in the SB's including an undefeated season where they TROUNCED just about every opponent they played outside the SB against a devastating front 7.

 

I am no Pats fan, but it gets soooooo old listenting to people whine over something so insignificant in terms of the actual games being played. On one hand I understand that most people have never played football, at least at a higher level, and dont realize the minimal impact it really had (if any at all)...but get over it. They beat us just about every time we play them because we have sucked for the last decade after terrible personnel and front office decisions, and they havent because they are literally one of the best run organizations in football and have one of the best QB's to play the game and one of the best coaches of our generation.

 

I mean these guys AGAIN have a ton of early picks, including 2 firsts and 2 seconds...this is a team coming off a 13-3 season and a SB birth, yet they are going to have a ton of ammo going into the draft to fill the few holes they have (WR, Front 7 and Secondary) either through drafting or trading. I would kill to have a front office that could pull that off year end and year out. That is why they are SB contender every year for the last decade, and even before that, while we have been rebuilding mostly since the 90's. There success is not because of some stupid tapes that had little significance.

If it was so meaningless, why risk doing it? That's the question that no one has been able to answer (properly) yet.

[Mr. WEO]

Sorry doc, I need more than "everyone did it" from a known cheat and bud of Belichick, whose only examples of cheating were some OL coach some 20 years ago and himself, over a decade ago. I need even some hint of other teams, you know, actually doing it.

 

So the person who is cheated is at fault, not the cheater? Interesting. Is that just for football, or does it apply everywhere in your world? And the Pats didn't face any teams in the playoffs that they met during the regular season in 2003 and 2004?

 

I'm not outraged at the lack of outrage, not that there was no outrage and still isn't (witness James Harrison). They haven't won a SB since getting caught. It's kind of like you and Merriman's problems after getting caught using steroids ("everyone uses them").

Trying to decipher the bolded sentence--I said BB cheated, said he was crazy for doing it so brazenly. Not sure what you're getting at. Everyone in the league knew he was doing it. How could it have have had much of an impact? Wellington Mara said long ago that if you don;t want temas stealing your signals, change your signals.

 

As for Merriman, not sure what your point is. He has proven to be a waste of a pickup this far--many here predicted this. No doubt it's because of the damage from steroid use.

 

 

my only point is... OBJECTIVELY... i have never... EVER EVER EVER... seen football played like the patriots played it between 2001/2002, and 2003/2004. there's winning good, theres winning ugly, theres winning lucky, and then theres just winning when you have absolutely no business winning because you know what play is coming next. if it was black jack, they were hitting on 17 and getting a 3 every time. if it was poker, they were going all in on a pair of 7s after the 1st card, and then getting their 4th 7 on the river - EVERY GAME. they were beating peyton in his prime... in ways that were just... magical. after they beat the steelers for the second time in the conference championship, steelers wideouts after the game said PATRIOT PLAYERS WERE CALLING OUT THEIR PLAYS AT THE LINE OF SCRIMMAGE!

 

is brady the best qb in the league, and the best qb of the last decade? yes.

is belly the best coach in the league, and the best coach of the last decade? without question.

did the patriots cheat, and did that help them win superbowls? yes.

 

 

In 2002, NE didn't even make the playoffs. What happened there? And the two teams they beat in 2003 and 2004 in the SB, they hadn't played those years. How did they steal their signals? In 2005, after 2 SB wins, they lost to Denver in the playoffs--after losing to them in the regular season. How was that possible if they knew all the Broncos defensive playes and were calling them out at the line?

 

Since they were busted for cheating, their winning percentage has increased and so has their points per game. How is that possible unless they know the opposing defenses plays beforehand?

 

I mean almost never being caught in the wrong defensive alignment vs a run or a pass, I watched teams run play action so good it fooled the camera, but as the pass came down you'd see 3 Pats defenders bracketing the would be receiver. I watched them either pick up or burn every blitz no matter how cleverly disguised or how many guys were sent. Too many times I would see Pats pass defenders seemingly waiting on the ball to get to them while it was in the air. I mean I guess it could all be my imagination and all of that that I watched was simply the result of razor sharp discipline and superb game planning/coaching, but in my own very personal opinion....they had to be cheating.

 

They were taping the opposing teams' defensive signals, not offensive signals. Offensive signals have been sent to the QB helmet since 1994.

 

If it was so meaningless, why risk doing it? That's the question that no one has been able to answer (properly) yet.

 

Why risk taking steroids? Because you are personally convinced that it will give you an edge. Yet the best QBs in the past 10 years (who are amongst the best ever) never tested positive for steroids, Same for RBs, WRs, LBs etc. Merriman may have been very briefly amongst the best of his time, but his use of steroids was the exception. Most guys felt it would do them no good so they didn't do it. They saw minimal benefit.

 

Why did the pats steal signals? They thought it would help them. Marv Levy thought the same thing when he boasted that he had the best signal stealer in the league. Obviously that means that the Bills knew the opposing teams defensive signals during their SB heydays, yet you don't seem bothered by that. Perhaps not "everyone did it" because they felt the advantage was minimal compared to the penalty. But if you say you believe that JJ and BB were the only coaches who taped or were aware of taping going on, you are simply being disingenuous to make a point.

 

And if it was such a huge advantage, why did it fail them in 2002 and 2005--right after SB wins? As you have pointed out in the past, they didn't even make the playoffs after their first SB.

[angryfan62]

Trying to decipher the bolded sentence--I said BB cheated, said he was crazy for doing it so brazenly. Not sure what you're getting at. Everyone in the league knew he was doing it. How could it have have had much of an impact? Wellington Mara said long ago that if you don;t want temas stealing your signals, change your signals.

 

As for Merriman, not sure what your point is. He has proven to be a waste of a pickup this far--many here predicted this. No doubt it's because of the damage from steroid use.

 

 

In 2002, NE didn't even make the playoffs. What happened there? And the two teams they beat in 2003 and 2004 in the SB, they hadn't played those years. How did they steal their signals? In 2005, after 2 SB wins, they lost to Denver in the playoffs--after losing to them in the regular season. How was that possible if they knew all the Broncos defensive playes and were calling them out at the line?

 

Since they were busted for cheating, their winning percentage has increased and so has their points per game. How is that possible unless they know the opposing defenses plays beforehand?

 

 

 

They were taping the opposing teams' defensive signals, not offensive signals. Offensive signals have been sent to the QB helmet since 1994.

 

 

 

Why risk taking steroids? Because you are personally convinced that it will give you an edge. Yet the best QBs in the past 10 years (who are amongst the best ever) never tested positive for steroids, Same for RBs, WRs, LBs etc. Merriman may have been very briefly amongst the best of his time, but his use of steroids was the exception. Most guys felt it would do them no good so they didn't do it. They saw minimal benefit.

 

Why did the pats steal signals? They thought it would help them. Marv Levy thought the same thing when he boasted that he had the best signal stealer in the league. Obviously that means that the Bills knew the opposing teams defensive signals during their SB heydays, yet you don't seem bothered by that. Perhaps not "everyone did it" because they felt the advantage was minimal compared to the penalty. But if you say you believe that JJ and BB were the only coaches who taped or were aware of taping going on, you are simply being disingenuous to make a point.

 

And if it was such a huge advantage, why did it fail them in 2002 and 2005--right after SB wins? As you have pointed out in the past, they didn't even make the playoffs after their first SB.

 

Don't know why the original quotes that your replying to won't come through, but this is in response to:

 

"They were taping the opposing teams' defensive signals, not offensive signals. Offensive signals have been sent to the QB helmet since 1994."

 

Which was in response to my earlier post where in replying to "JohnnyGold" I said:

 

"Man am I glad someone besides me said this, especially someone from that area. Football is in one way kind of like chess due to the fact that the opposing players and coaches must try to predict what their opponent is up to on any given down. This is the beauty of the game, any offense can be stopped, and any defense can be exploited....as long as you guess right. Get it wrong and you'll be scored on, or your play will be stuffed. Some teams and coaches are better at this than others obviously, and sometimes those rules just don't apply(Our season opener against the Pats a few days after they cut their defensive captain Milloy, and that SB between TB and the Raiders where 1 coach got to play his old team half a season after being fired by them). I'm not a kid and I have been watching my Bills and other teams play football regularly since the late 70's. Normally it's just impossible to guess right all the time, and even a crappy team will hang a few scores on you when they catch you looking the wrong way, but I watched those games too and it just wasn't normal. I mean almost never being caught in the wrong defensive alignment vs a run or a pass, I watched teams run play action so good it fooled the camera, but as the pass came down you'd see 3 Pats defenders bracketing the would be receiver. I watched them either pick up or burn every blitz no matter how cleverly disguised or how many guys were sent. Too many times I would see Pats pass defenders seemingly waiting on the ball to get to them while it was in the air. I mean I guess it could all be my imagination and all of that that I watched was simply the result of razor sharp discipline and superb game planning/coaching, but in my own very personal opinion....they had to be cheating. "

 

 

I can't irrefutably prove everything I said, that's why I stated that this was just my opinion. Hey...here's another one...maybe all that they got caught doing was stealing defensive signals. I mean are the Jags mistaken too?

 

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/20748507/

 

And if so maybe Hines Ward is also letting his imagination run away with him.

 

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/20748384/

 

And the Miami Herald could be just plain wrong

 

http://dolphinsindepth.blogspot.com/2008/05/patriots-cheated-on-dolphins-offense.html

 

There's also that rumor floating around about them having a radio on defense(8th paragraph down). But hey, you wouldn't even need that.... unless....Nah.

 

https://tstos.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/were-the-rams-cheated-in-super-bowl-xxxvi/

 

There are a ton of differing opinions on this subject and like I said before, mine is just one of them and I could be completely wrong.....but I don't think so...Once again, just my very humble opinion.

Edited February 9, 2012 by angryfan62

[Ramius]

If there was no evidence of cheating, the NFL wouldn't have been so quick to burn the tapes. No one hurriedly destroys evidence when there's nothing to hide.

[Mr. WEO]

Don't know why the original quotes that your replying to won't come through, but this is in response to:

 

"They were taping the opposing teams' defensive signals, not offensive signals. Offensive signals have been sent to the QB helmet since 1994."

 

I can't irrefutably prove everything I said, that's why I stated that this was just my opinion. Hey...here's another one...maybe all that they got caught doing was stealing defensive signals. I mean are the Jags mistaken too?

 

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/20748507/

 

And if so maybe Hines Ward is also letting his imagination run away with him.

 

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/20748384/

 

And the Miami Herald could be just plain wrong

 

http://dolphinsindepth.blogspot.com/2008/05/patriots-cheated-on-dolphins-offense.html

 

There's also that rumor floating around about them having a radio on defense(8th paragraph down). But hey, you wouldn't even need that.... unless....Nah.

 

https://tstos.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/were-the-rams-cheated-in-super-bowl-xxxvi/

 

There are a ton of differing opinions on this subject and like I said before, mine is just one of them and I could be completely wrong.....but I don't think so...Once again, just my very humble opinion.

Not sure what your point of providing links to reports of them taping defensive signals proves--no on is denying they were doing it.

 

As for "Stealing offensive signals", there is no benefit to videotaping, unless you are a lip reader.

 

As for them "having a radio on defense"--that seems to be the specualtion of "Bernie Miklasz". Bernie turned out to be quite prescient, as the NFL allowed defensive radio communication that very same year.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Mr. WEO

[angryfan62]

Not sure what your point of providing links to reports of them taping defensive signals proves--no on is denying they were doing it.

 

As for "Stealing offensive signals", there is no benefit to videotaping, unless you are a lip reader.

 

As for them "having a radio on defense"--that seems to be the specualtion of "Bernie Miklasz". Bernie turned out to be quite prescient, as the NFL allowed defensive radio communication that very same year.

 

 

I'm sorry, instead of posting those links I guess I should have just have just pasted the relevant quotes.

 

From the 1st Link:

"Our coach-to-quarterback system mysteriously malfunctioned the entire first half,” said Del Rio, whose team was assessed two delay-of-game penalties in the first 20 minutes and eventually lost 28-3."

 

From the 2nd Link:

 

“Oh, they knew,” Ward said Wednesday. “They were calling our stuff out. They knew, especially that first championship game here at Heinz Field. They knew a lot of our calls. There’s no question some of their players were calling out some of our stuff.”(Hines plays on offense).

 

From the 3rd Link:

 

"Seems they also stole opponents' offensive signals, too.

At least they stole the Dolphins offensive signals, according to a report by USA Today.

Among the tapes delivered by former New England video employee Matt Walsh to the NFL is a tape marked to indicate it contains the Miami Dolphins' offensive signals from an Oct. 7, 2001 game against the Patriots.

 

"One of the tapes is labeled that way. Until we review it, we don't know what's there," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told the newspaper."(Pretty self explanatory).

 

From the 4th Link:

 

"There’s even some buzz (all speculation to this point) that the Patriots rigged up helmet transmitters for defensive players in order to change a call before the snap – which is against NFL rules."

 

Now granted I have no clue who Bernie Miklasz is/was either, but at the time he wrote that article he was absolutely correct in stating that it was against the NFL rules of that day. These are simply folks opinions Mr Weo, and just like me they could be completely wrong....but I don't think so....Once again just my very humble opinion.

[PDaDdy]

So you think that better team loses those early rings without the tape? Just a curiosity I've wondered some reading the thread.

 

What kind of scoreboard swing do you expect?

 

Any odds on if other teams bent rules as well?

 

It think it is very possible and almost a sure thing that they would have lost more games along the way. Information is power. Bellicheat always seemed to be 1 or 2 steps ahead of the opposition. This would play into that belief.

 

Your other two items I could speculate on but as you already know nobody can really put a number on them as we weren't privy to every little bit of stolen information and how they adjusted their game plans.

[BillsfaninFl]

A lot of good points here. Plus, very suspicious that the league headquarters leveled such heavy penalties, then destroyed the evidence. To the accusations about offensive signals stolen, tapping into those frequencies is relatively easy if you really want to do it and will pay the price. So my question is, if someone is a known cheater whose activity was so blatant that the league hit him hard then covered up the evidence, do you think that person is capable of using electronic means to cheat in addition to the videotaping?

 

I do. And the motivation is huge: Many millions of dollars at stake, being considered a genius at your occupation, having a portfolio of leading a dominant team during a spectacular stretch of winning seasons and championships. In an NFL where most coaches and players have relatively brief careers, the risks are not that great. Belicheat was caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Did the organization dump him? Did the league ban him? The fine was chump change compared to how his pay has soared. And despite the grumbling, if he left New England, virtually all other teams would get in line to try to hire him. When he retires he will go down in NFL history as one of the best coaches ever. We may never know the extent of the things he did/does, but as stated in the comments above, there is plenty of evidence that it was bigtime cheating and changed the outcome of games.

[Doc]

If there was no evidence of cheating, the NFL wouldn't have been so quick to burn the tapes. No one hurriedly destroys evidence when there's nothing to hide.

That was the oddest/most telling part of the whole thing. And if every team did it, why didn't Belichick out any of the other 31 teams, so as to save face (and a draft pick and fine)?

[Mr. WEO]

I'm sorry, instead of posting those links I guess I should have just have just pasted the relevant quotes.

 

From the 1st Link:

"Our coach-to-quarterback system mysteriously malfunctioned the entire first half,” said Del Rio, whose team was assessed two delay-of-game penalties in the first 20 minutes and eventually lost 28-3."

 

From the 2nd Link:

 

“Oh, they knew,” Ward said Wednesday. “They were calling our stuff out. They knew, especially that first championship game here at Heinz Field. They knew a lot of our calls. There’s no question some of their players were calling out some of our stuff.”(Hines plays on offense).

 

From the 3rd Link:

 

"Seems they also stole opponents' offensive signals, too.

At least they stole the Dolphins offensive signals, according to a report by USA Today.

Among the tapes delivered by former New England video employee Matt Walsh to the NFL is a tape marked to indicate it contains the Miami Dolphins' offensive signals from an Oct. 7, 2001 game against the Patriots.

 

"One of the tapes is labeled that way. Until we review it, we don't know what's there," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told the newspaper."(Pretty self explanatory).

 

From the 4th Link:

 

"There’s even some buzz (all speculation to this point) that the Patriots rigged up helmet transmitters for defensive players in order to change a call before the snap – which is against NFL rules."

 

Now granted I have no clue who Bernie Miklasz is/was either, but at the time he wrote that article he was absolutely correct in stating that it was against the NFL rules of that day. These are simply folks opinions Mr Weo, and just like me they could be completely wrong....but I don't think so....Once again just my very humble opinion.

 

No need to quote the quotes--these are well known articles from back then.

 

I don't recall Ward making that claim ("they were calling out our plays..") before spygate (5 years later). Also, it's not cleat to me what offensive signal are being taped, when all offensive plays are radio relayed to QBs directly. And this communication is shut off for the final 15 seconds of the play clock.

 

As for whether a coach or team could purposefully tamper with signal--anything's possible. The article below describes this in detail and how other coaches have supposedly done this and anonymous players copped to it on their teams (NE was not implicated as one of them).

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=sando_mike&id=3035449

 

That was the oddest/most telling part of the whole thing. And if every team did it, why didn't Belichick out any of the other 31 teams, so as to save face (and a draft pick and fine)?

Who said there was no evidence of cheating on those tapes? What are you 2 talking about?

 

Why didn't the other owners all have a problem with this and Goodell's handling of it?

 

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3259278

 

"I'd like to think that maybe there are other, more important things to worry about in the world these days," Giants co-owner John Mara told the New York Daily News in Indianapolis, site of the NFL scouting combine.

 

 

According to the Daily News, Goodell met with the eight-man committee at the combine and spelled out a Spygate timeline -- what happened, how he arrived at the Patriots' punishment, what was found in the confiscated film and notes, and why he later destroyed that evidence.

 

 

"The process was fair, detailed, efficient," Colts general manager Bill Polian said, according to the Daily News. "What was on the tapes was explained to us. What was on the notes was explained to us. The reason that information was disposed of was explained to us. It was a thorough, fair process with lots of integrity. We were satisfied with what was done."

[Alphadawg7]

If it was so meaningless, why risk doing it? That's the question that no one has been able to answer (properly) yet.

 

Pretty simple...in a game of inches, you try and get any edge you think you can, even if it more often than not provides nothing. Not to mention, I promise you there isn't a team in the NFL that hasn't tried what the Patriots got caught for in one way or another. Just like there are more players that were using Steroids in Baseball than have been caught...or how there are more players that used banned substances the year Merriman got caught other than Merriman...its just that those people got caught and then have to be publicly disciplined for their actions.

 

As far as all this talk about how the Pats D could call out plays on just about every play exactly...well, watch more football. Every play someone is calling something out for one because they have countless hours of true IN GAME film of how they run plays and their D and O. Second, those NE D's had some brilliant defensive leaders running those units like Bruschi and Vrabel. Third, peoples memory of what went down is now GREATLY exaggerated and manipulated by the scandal and its now almost myth like memory of what it was really like. I mean in the height of those 3 SB runs, NE was not just dominating the opposition, in fact, all 3 SB wins were down to the wire. If they had such an edge to where they knew the play all the time, they would have blown them all out.

 

In society when a seed gets planted in someones head, how you remember the events get manipulated to support the new theory. This story will never go away on these boards I am sure, but it really should.

[st pete gogolak]

The advantages of spygate are so over exaggerated that its not even funny. Truth is, every team has a endless amount of film of schemes of their opponents. The likelihood that they found something that the other film doesn't already show is minimal at best, and even then it would be maybe a play or two that they may not even run in a game. If you talk to any person with any knowledge of game planning for a football game at a high level they will tell you more was made of it than it really is and lots of teams have done things like this.

 

The reason they won those games is very very simple...more talent in the FO and on the field in the SB years than in the more recent years. For one, the D was substantially better back then and has been a sore spot for sometime now.

 

Lets also be REALISTIC here...Literally TWO PLAYS cost NE the both SB victories. In the first one, it was the dropped INT just before the Tyree miracle catch (or you can even say the fluke catch by a WR who couldnt even make the squad the following season despite being the SB hero) cost them a victory in that one. In this last one, the Welker drop would have been a NE win if he had held onto that ball. And thats a catch he makes 8 out of 10 times. So, outside of two plays, NE would be 5-0 in the SB's including an undefeated season where they TROUNCED just about every opponent they played outside the SB against a devastating front 7.

 

I am no Pats fan, but it gets soooooo old listenting to people whine over something so insignificant in terms of the actual games being played. On one hand I understand that most people have never played football, at least at a higher level, and dont realize the minimal impact it really had (if any at all)...but get over it. They beat us just about every time we play them because we have sucked for the last decade after terrible personnel and front office decisions, and they havent because they are literally one of the best run organizations in football and have one of the best QB's to play the game and one of the best coaches of our generation.

 

I mean these guys AGAIN have a ton of early picks, including 2 firsts and 2 seconds...this is a team coming off a 13-3 season and a SB birth, yet they are going to have a ton of ammo going into the draft to fill the few holes they have (WR, Front 7 and Secondary) either through drafting or trading. I would kill to have a front office that could pull that off year end and year out. That is why they are SB contender every year for the last decade, and even before that, while we have been rebuilding mostly since the 90's. There success is not because of some stupid tapes that had little significance.

 

 

You are what your record says you are - even when it comes to the Super Bowl. They should have lost to the Rams (Belicheck badly outcoached Martz) and could have lost to the Panthers. So if the breaks hadn't gone their way, they could have been 0-5 or 1-4 in the Super Bowl. But they went 3-2. You are what your record says you are.

[PromoTheRobot]

You are what your record says you are - even when it comes to the Super Bowl. They should have lost to the Rams (Belicheck badly outcoached Martz) and could have lost to the Panthers. So if the breaks hadn't gone their way, they could have been 0-5 or 1-4 in the Super Bowl. But they went 3-2. You are what your record says you are.

Why is it so hard to believe that you can't be a great team and still cheat? Everyone knows the Pats were awesome in their SB run, but that doesn't mean they didn't cheat. Even if their cheating was totally unnecessary and they could have won without cheating...they still cheated. And that casts a shadow on their accomplishment.

 

It would be like Mark McGuire's home run record. Can anyone say exactly how many of those home runs he got because of steroids? It's possible Mark could have broke the record without taking them, but because he took steroids his record has an asterisk.

 

I look at the Pats* the same way.

 

PTR

Edited February 9, 2012 by PromoTheRobot

[Doc]

Who said there was no evidence of cheating on those tapes? What are you 2 talking about?

 

Why didn't the other owners all have a problem with this and Goodell's handling of it?

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3259278

Because they wanted the issue to go away? The Pats were the flagship team at the time, and questions about the legitimacy of their SB wins wouldn't be good for the league (read: profits). This holds whether you believe "everyone did it" or they acted alone. But again, if "everyone did it," Belichick should have been outing every other team that did. His silence spoke volumes.

[Mr. WEO]

Because they wanted the issue to go away? The Pats were the flagship team at the time, and questions about the legitimacy of their SB wins wouldn't be good for the league (read: profits). This holds whether you believe "everyone did it" or they acted alone. But again, if "everyone did it," Belichick should have been outing every other team that did. His silence spoke volumes.

 

What, exactly, in his history would have you conclude BB would have outed anyone else? And what would have been the point? He knew his number was up.

 

The silence that spoke volumes involved many others--owners, HC's who were "robbed", Mudd (who was called father of video cheating in the national press--and yet he says nothing to deny this).

 

As many others have said here, the benefit was debateable. To claim as evidence of the benefit of the taping the fact that NE "hasn't won a SB since they got caught cheating" ignores that they have won a higher percentage of their games and scored more points per game since then and they have appeared in 2 more SBs since then--both of which turned on a single play, essentially (or a few--catches made or dropped). It's really a crazy claim.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Mr. WEO

[BADOLBILZ]

The Giants have a defensive line that is absolutely stacked and very deep. It's not only the best in the NFL, it is the best one I have seen in a long time. So good, that it makes me reconsider my long time preference of the 3/4 defense, which is a foot injury away from a nose tackle to being ineffective. This in a pass driven league.

The rest of the Giant defense really isn't that great. In fact, imo our secondary would make more plays than theirs with that DL in front of the. Our lbs however are as bad as one can really imagine.

 

Call me crazy, but imo the Bills receivers aren't the worst either, and seem to be getting open more often than in recent years. The bottom line wrt the Bills (imo) is that with more talent and depth on both lines, they can be a playoff team (assuming they bring in 1 or 2 professional linebackers). I think the Giants helped make my case.

 

I think the Bills are going to get a wildcard this year. They will have to pretty much make no progress this offseason to not contend for a wildcard spot. Health, of course, will be an issue for this team, but they have a veteran team and even if they don't have a great QB they should have a good chance to get to 10 wins in possibly a transition year for the Phins and Jets.

 

I can see the Bills making the playoffs this year then tanking again in 2013. They aren't built for sustained success.

[Doc]

What, exactly, in his history would have you conclude BB would have outed anyone else? And what would have been the point? He knew his number was up.

 

The silence that spoke volumes involved many others--owners, HC's who were "robbed", Mudd (who was called father of video cheating in the national press--and yet he says nothing to deny this).

 

As many others have said here, the benefit was debateable. To claim as evidence of the benefit of the taping the fact that NE "hasn't won a SB since they got caught cheating" ignores that they have won a higher percentage of their games and scored more points per game since then and they have appeared in 2 more SBs since then--both of which turned on a single play, essentially (or a few--catches made or dropped). It's really a crazy claim.

What was the point? I don't know, maybe to prove that "everyone else did it," instead of having hid buddy, who hadn't been on a sideline since the turn of the century, to make baseless claims? And if it were true that "everyone did it," then they shouldn't have been (the only ones to have been) punished. And grace has never been his strong suit.

 

There's a big difference between people who want to see something go away for the betterment of the legaue being silent, and the person who stands accused being silent. Remember when Lynch not talking made you believe he was guilty?

 

It obviously provided enough of a benefit for Belichick to not only break the rule in the first place, but continue to break it even after being warned. But I'm sure it was of zero benefit, and Belichick likes the thrill of being a rebel and risking a 1st rounder and himself and his team $750K.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Doc

[ThurmasThoman]

 

In 2002, NE didn't even make the playoffs. What happened there? And the two teams they beat in 2003 and 2004 in the SB, they hadn't played those years. How did they steal their signals? In 2005, after 2 SB wins, they lost to Denver in the playoffs--after losing to them in the regular season. How was that possible if they knew all the Broncos defensive playes and were calling them out at the line?

 

Since they were busted for cheating, their winning percentage has increased and so has their points per game. How is that possible unless they know the opposing defenses plays beforehand?

 

 

 

this is a logical fallacy.

 

if

a) new england won a super bowl by cheating

but

b) they didn't win a super bowl one of those years

then

c) they must not have been cheating

 

lets use an analogy:

 

your wife goes on a week long getaway to the bahamas with her male boss, and stays with him at the four seasons there in september, november and december, but not october.

 

the following january, someone from her company accuses her of having an affair. you get a family counselor from your church to review surveillance footage from the hotel room, and advise you on your marriage. after reviewing the tapes, he tells you that your vows have been broken, and recommends the most intensive couples counseling in the history of marriage -- therapy that he has recommended for no other couples in the history of adultery.

 

you're line of thinking seems to be "hey, she didn't go down there in OCTOBER with him, so it's not that bad. plus, she doesn't even go to the bahamas anymore! she went to rome with him in february, and just got back from a trip to tokyo with him last week. so there!"

Edited February 10, 2012 by JohnnyGold

[Doc]

this is a logical fallacy.

 

if

a) new england won a super bowl by cheating

but

b) they didn't win a super bowl one of those years

then

c) they must not have been cheating

Why didn't Barry Bonds break the single-season HR record every year?