Think NE's FO is so great?

[Orton's Arm]

This thread is the same thread that repeatedly occurs. The general tenor of the responses is the same. It rarely changes. The basis for the majority of responses is childish jealousy. It's fans from a historically losing fanbase knowing that they have little chance to succeed throwing stones at the franchise that is a historically winning franchise.

 

If you believe that cheating was a major factor in the Pats winning SBs that is your prerogative. I don't accept that notion.

 

There is no doubt that the Pats will eventually have to contend with the down cycle of their successful run. The trajectory is moving downwards as Brady gets older. That is the nature of the cap and parity system. No franchise is immune from escaping the cyclical nature of the system. What is remarkable about the Pats is that they expanded the time frame of the cycle and remained near the top for so long. They are a good organization that when faced with the inevitability of the downcycle won't stay there long like the generationally bad Bills.

 

Sometimes the broad brush accidently covers the small detailed section of the wall. The military calls it collatoral damage. Unintended consequences. As I have repeatedly stated in this thread I find the responses in general to be the same type of loser-minded responses against a successful franchise that knows how to run a high quality operation. I find it not only embarrassing but also very sad.

 

> The basis for the majority of responses is childish jealousy.

 

Which is why most of your responses have solely addressed the childish jealousy you perceive, while ignoring any factual points which had been raised. Some of your posts in this discussion--such as your description of Kraft's objections to Parcells--were good, solid contributions. You should add more posts like those, while eschewing information-free posts which add nothing to the discussion beyond your own complaints.

 

> If you believe that cheating was a major factor in the Pats winning SBs that is your prerogative. I don't accept that notion.

 

Speaking of information-free posts, I see no explanation here as to why you dismiss the impact of cheating in the Patriots' three Super Bowl wins.

 

A while ago, I read an article about Jimmy Johnson and the Dallas Cowboys. In the week leading up to the second Bills/Cowboys Super Bowl, he'd been watching television, and happened to see video footage of a Bills' practice. He saw us practicing a particular kind of screen pass. He therefore prepared his team to defend against exactly that kind of pass. Later on he commented on how happy he'd been that he'd been watching television at that time.

 

Given that the Cowboys won that Super Bowl by a score of 30-13, I'm confident the Bills would still have lost even if Jimmy hadn't seen nationally televised footage of a Bills practice. But if a team had known what its opponent was going to do before every single play, and if its margin of victory was only three points, then it is absolutely absurd to dismiss the possibility that cheating changed the outcome of the game. You are a smart guy. Smart people are most likely to embrace stupid conclusions when they've allowed emotion to affect the clarity of their thought processes.

 

That's exactly what you are guilty of here. I actually have some sympathy for your perspective. If someone with an anti-Patriots bias posts something obviously inaccurate, that irritates me as much as it irritates you. But a blind reaction against that anti-Patriots bias is no more conducive to accuracy than the anti-Patriots bias itself. There is only one reliable way to be accurate. It's to relentlessly pursue the truth, while ignoring emotion, and ignoring the distraction of other people's biases.

[Pneumonic]

> The basis for the majority of responses is childish jealousy.

 

Which is why most of your responses have solely addressed the childish jealousy you perceive, while ignoring any factual points which had been raised. Some of your posts in this discussion--such as your description of Kraft's objections to Parcells--were good, solid contributions. You should add more posts like those, while eschewing information-free posts which add nothing to the discussion beyond your own complaints.

 

> If you believe that cheating was a major factor in the Pats winning SBs that is your prerogative. I don't accept that notion.

 

Speaking of information-free posts, I see no explanation here as to why you dismiss the impact of cheating in the Patriots' three Super Bowl wins.

 

A while ago, I read an article about Jimmy Johnson and the Dallas Cowboys. In the week leading up to the second Bills/Cowboys Super Bowl, he'd been watching television, and happened to see video footage of a Bills' practice. He saw us practicing a particular kind of screen pass. He therefore prepared his team to defend against exactly that kind of pass. Later on he commented on how happy he'd been that he'd been watching television at that time.

 

Given that the Cowboys won that Super Bowl by a score of 30-13, I'm confident the Bills would still have lost even if Jimmy hadn't seen nationally televised footage of a Bills practice. But if a team had known what its opponent was going to do before every single play, and if its margin of victory was only three points, then it is absolutely absurd to dismiss the possibility that cheating changed the outcome of the game. You are a smart guy. Smart people are most likely to embrace stupid conclusions when they've allowed emotion to affect the clarity of their thought processes.

 

That's exactly what you are guilty of here. I actually have some sympathy for your perspective. If someone with an anti-Patriots bias posts something obviously inaccurate, that irritates me as much as it irritates you. But a blind reaction against that anti-Patriots bias is no more conducive to accuracy than the anti-Patriots bias itself. There is only one reliable way to be accurate. It's to relentlessly pursue the truth, while ignoring emotion, and ignoring the distraction of other people's biases.

 

If there is any belief still that the Pats "cheating" was the primary cause for their greatness, such belief should have waned by now due to the fact that since the Pats "stopped cheating" (let's call it their last SB win some 8 years ago), the Pats have:

 

- Compiled a league best 98-30 W/L record in the regular season.

- Set winning and performances records that are historical.

- Appeared in 7 playoff games (and lost out on an 8th despite winning 11 games)

- Orchestrated the only 16-0 season ever

- Played in 4 AFFC games

- Played in 2 SB games.

 

If anyone is still excusing away the Pats stellar performance, due to cheating, then is it not expected that they get called out in some fashion? Is it not expected that such critics should have moved on by now and accepted the above facts that clearly show that the Pats really are an exceptional team and that any reference to their cheating ways of yesteryear is nothing more than simple envy and jealousy?

[San Jose Bills Fan]

First of all, for all of you Bills fans fluffing Belichick's record, each and every one of you is failing to point out that the Cheatriots*** have enjoyed a cake walk through the AFC East for virtually their entire reign.

 

Do you think their record and their playoff appearances would be as impressive if they played in the NFC East or the AFC North?

 

A large part of New England's success has been built on the utter ineptitude of their divisional opponents.

 

It's obvious that Belichick and Brady are great at what they do.

 

The question is how great?

 

Your logic is that the loser of the Super Bowl is no different than every other team. Even if we accept your premise that they won Super Bowls because of cheating - something I find to be absurd - they have won the division every year since then and have remained a perennial Super Bowl contender. To dismiss that accomplishment is just so incredibly absurd.

 

It is nice to see that someone else is willing to call Belichick a genius here, though.

 

You apparently have little understanding of how fine a line divides winning and losing in pro sports.

 

Over the last decade, the average margin of victory in an NFL game is between 5 and 6 points.

 

Now tell me again that knowing your opponents defensive signals has no bearing on who wins and losses these games.

 

As for your username, I know you've said you're related to Jack Kemp but you really need to consider changing your username to Parilli.

 

 

If one searches hard and long enough they'll figure out something which they believe rationalizes away greatness and use said excuse as an argument against the greatness point.

 

One common rationalization you see all of the time is to excuse a head coach (or FO's) greatness due his/them having at their disposal superior players at strategic positions.

 

One just has to read this thread to see this point being made wrt the Pats dynasty ...... the Pats, and BB, have Brady and he's solely responsible for the teams success no matter who else the GM sticks alongside him. We see the exact same thing argued when it comes to other NFL dynasties too;

 

Lombardi had Starr and Taylor

Walsh had Montana and Rice

Noll had Badshaw, Harris and Swann

JJ had Aikman, Smith and Irvin

 

The NFL may well be the ultimate team sport. To signal out a few superstars is natural but, to minimize the impact and importance of 50+ non superstar players is doing these guys a gross injustice and makes for a very weak argument.

 

What you fail to understand is that your last paragraph is less accurate than the argument that you're trying to debunk. This commonly happens after an idea gains popularity (the biggest arbiter of NFL success is the QB/HC combo) and as a result, there is a backlash opinion to it.

 

What is the last Super Bowl winning team that didn't have either a great QB or a great HC?

 

The last Super Bowl winning team I recall that did not have greatness in at least one of those positions was the Billick/Dilfer Ravens.

 

Virtually every Super Bowl winner of recent times has had greatness at both of those positions.

 

I agree that NFL football is the ultimate in team sports but without the HC/QB combo, you have talented losers like last year's KC Chiefs who had 6 Pro Bowlers and missed the playoffs again.

 

Have you ever considered what happens to players like Kyle Williams, Mario Williams, Marcel Dareus, Stephon Gilmore, Stevie Johnson, CJ Spiller, Eric Wood, etc when they suddenly have a great head coach and a great quarterback leading them???

[BuffOrange]

Offense:

QB Ryan Mallet, may or may not be the future, was highly regarded out of college

RB Stevan Ridley, Shane Vereen, Brandon Bolden all 24 or younger

WR Josh Boyce, Aaron Dobson, Kenbrell Thomkins all 3 rookies, two of which were drafted this year with high promise and a promising UDFA that has lit up the PS

TE Rob Gronkowski signed though 2019 with team outs

OL we have our franchise Left Tackle it Nate Solder

 

Defense:

LB Mayo will be the veteran leader of the future, Hightower played very well as a rookie

DE Chandler Jones was quite possibly on his way to DROY until he got hurt

CB Alfonzo Dennard was a steal at CB, Logan Ryan looked good in PS but we'll have to see about what he does in real games, Talib is pretty young too, if we resign him our 2 CB starters are set

S D-Mac looks like an elite safety out there, a few other youngsters look promising but the jury is still out

 

That's a very glass half full summary.

The only positions that really stand out as far as their long-term future are the OL & LB core.

Mallet, the WR's, the DB's - every team has guys like that who may or may not work out.

The RB's are fine but none are real difference makers. Again this is true of about 90% of teams outside of Minnesota (superhuman) and Pittsburgh (a bunch of scrubs).

Gronk despite his youth could very well be closer to the end of his peak than the beginning, as pointed out by Bill Barnwell.

[Orton's Arm]

If there is any belief still that the Pats "cheating" was the primary cause for their greatness, such belief should have waned by now due to the fact that since the Pats "stopped cheating" (let's call it their last SB win some 8 years ago), the Pats have:

 

- Compiled a league best 98-30 W/L record in the regular season.

- Set winning and performances records that are historical.

- Appeared in 7 playoff games (and lost out on an 8th despite winning 11 games)

- Orchestrated the only 16-0 season ever

- Played in 4 AFFC games

- Played in 2 SB games.

 

If anyone is still excusing away the Pats stellar performance, due to cheating, then is it not expected that they get called out in some fashion? Is it not expected that such critics should have moved on by now and accepted the above facts that clearly show that the Pats really are an exceptional team and that any reference to their cheating ways of yesteryear is nothing more than simple envy and jealousy?

 

> If there is any belief still that the Pats "cheating" was the primary cause for their greatness, such belief should have waned by now

 

You are arguing against a straw man. My post stated that if Team X beats Team Y by a margin of 3 points, and if Team X cheated, the cheating may well have affected the outcome of the game. That logic is just as applicable to the Patriots' three Super Bowl wins as it would be to any other game in which cheating occurred.

 

As you correctly pointed out, the Patriots still achieved a lot after the cheating stopped. Even without the cheating, they still would have been a very impressive team. No one is arguing otherwise.

[Doc]

The facts that Pats fans/apologists can't dispute are that they cheated during those SB wining seasons, won each by just a FG, and after getting caught cheating haven't won a SB since, despite having arguably one the best teams in NFL history in one of those 2 SB losses. That's not jealousy; that's the truth. If you want to believe that cheating didn't help them, that's your prerogative, and many people are in denial about a great many things, some much more important than a football team. However Belichick didn't videotape because he needed to fill up his home film library; he did it because it gave him an advantage. And when people are caught cheating, their wins aren't analyzed to see whether the cheating helped; they're merely labelled as cheaters and their wins vacated. Usually (eg. Barry Bonds is still the home run king).

 

Most have acknowledged that the Pats are a very good football team, past cheating notwithstanding. So claiming "sour grapes" also doesn't hold a lot of water.

 

And if you take issue with saying drafting Brady was pure dumb luck, again the facts show that it was. Again when he and Belichick are gone, the Pats will need to find a replacement for both for them to have success again, despite how great their organization allegedly is.

[Drop Kick Flutie]

That's a very glass half full summary.

The only positions that really stand out as far as their long-term future are the OL & LB core.

Mallet, the WR's, the DB's - every team has guys like that who may or may not work out.

The RB's are fine but none are real difference makers. Again this is true of about 90% of teams outside of Minnesota (superhuman) and Pittsburgh (a bunch of scrubs).

Gronk despite his youth could very well be closer to the end of his peak than the beginning, as pointed out by Bill Barnwell.

We have two in the secondary that are unquestionably part of the core Dennard and McCourty, the others I stated the question marks, as for WR, there is no doubt that they are young and inexperienced, but every player was a rookie at some point and there are good indications of them, Amendola was locked up for multi years as well and he's proven he can produce while on the field with lesser QBs

[Pneumonic]

I don't know how to put this any other way than to say:

 

If the Pats stopped their winning ways after "cheating" then I might acknowledge that said cheating aided them in their wins, no matter the margin of victory. But, the sheer dominance that this team has demonstrated, post spygate, clearly indicates otherwise.

[Drop Kick Flutie]

The facts that Pats fans/apologists can't dispute are that they cheated during those SB wining seasons, won each by just a FG, and after getting caught cheating haven't won a SB since, despite having arguably one the best teams in NFL history in one of those 2 SB losses. That's not jealousy; that's the truth. If you want to believe that cheating didn't help them, that's your prerogative, and many people are in denial about a great many things, some much more important than a football team. However Belichick didn't videotape because he needed to fill up his home film library; he did it because it gave him an advantage. And when people are caught cheating, their wins aren't analyzed to see whether the cheating helped; they're merely labelled as cheaters and their wins vacated. Usually (eg. Barry Bonds is still the home run king).

 

Most have acknowledged that the Pats are a very good football team, past cheating notwithstanding. So claiming "sour grapes" also doesn't hold a lot of water.

 

And if you take issue with saying drafting Brady was pure dumb luck, again the facts show that it was. Again when he and Belichick are gone, the Pats will need to find a replacement for both for them to have success again, despite how great their organization allegedly is.

While drafting Brady may have been luck how they managed him after drafting him wasn't. I bet there is at least a few late round QBs who would have made above average starters had they been given the right circumstances.

[NoSaint]

 

 

> If there is any belief still that the Pats "cheating" was the primary cause for their greatness, such belief should have waned by now

 

You are arguing against a straw man. My post stated that if Team X beats Team Y by a margin of 3 points, and if Team X cheated, the cheating may well have affected the outcome of the game. That logic is just as applicable to the Patriots' three Super Bowl wins as it would be to any other game in which cheating occurred.

 

As you correctly pointed out, the Patriots still achieved a lot after the cheating stopped. Even without the cheating, they still would have been a very impressive team. No one is arguing otherwise.

 

the one place i think we disagree on this is the idea that they were the only team doing whatever they could to get an edge. could their opponents have been 100% squeeky clean? sure. is it likely given what we know of the nfl? i dont think so. unless you believe that they are unique in their attempts to play at the edge or outside the rules it gets murky to quantify or even qualify the what ifs in a situation like this. i just dont think all these things are uniquely BB and they were never passed down from those above him, or the large number that have gone around the league after him. while taping might not be happening currently, i dont doubt for a second that most if not all teams go outside the rules somehow.

 

The facts that Pats fans/apologists can't dispute are that they cheated during those SB wining seasons, won each by just a FG, and after getting caught cheating haven't won a SB since, despite having arguably one the best teams in NFL history in one of those 2 SB losses.

 

while i get that the ring is what counts, theres a degree of irrationality(maybe?) here that im having a hard time wrapping my head around. isnt the fact that even without cheating they were arguably one of the best teams in nfl history somehow significant in rating them as undeniably great even without the tape? i dont know. i guess i dont get how in one breathe its tearing them down and in the next calling them greatest of all time.

Edited September 4, 2013 by NoSaint

[K-9]

As SJBF so adroitly alluded to upthread, the dearth of competition in the AFCE over the same period is a contributing factor to the Pats* success. It's not the biggest factor, just a contributing factor. And the biggest reason for that is the complete lack of QBs that even remotely come close to approaching Tom Brady's level.

 

That all starts to change Sunday.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[JohnC]

> The basis for the majority of responses is childish jealousy.

 

Which is why most of your responses have solely addressed the childish jealousy you perceive, while ignoring any factual points which had been raised. Some of your posts in this discussion--such as your description of Kraft's objections to Parcells--were good, solid contributions. You should add more posts like those, while eschewing information-free posts which add nothing to the discussion beyond your own complaints.

 

> If you believe that cheating was a major factor in the Pats winning SBs that is your prerogative. I don't accept that notion.

 

Speaking of information-free posts, I see no explanation here as to why you dismiss the impact of cheating in the Patriots' three Super Bowl wins.

 

A while ago, I read an article about Jimmy Johnson and the Dallas Cowboys. In the week leading up to the second Bills/Cowboys Super Bowl, he'd been watching television, and happened to see video footage of a Bills' practice. He saw us practicing a particular kind of screen pass. He therefore prepared his team to defend against exactly that kind of pass. Later on he commented on how happy he'd been that he'd been watching television at that time.

 

Given that the Cowboys won that Super Bowl by a score of 30-13, I'm confident the Bills would still have lost even if Jimmy hadn't seen nationally televised footage of a Bills practice. But if a team had known what its opponent was going to do before every single play, and if its margin of victory was only three points, then it is absolutely absurd to dismiss the possibility that cheating changed the outcome of the game. You are a smart guy. Smart people are most likely to embrace stupid conclusions when they've allowed emotion to affect the clarity of their thought processes.

 

Jimmy Johnson seeing footage of the Bills practicing screen plays had absolutely nothing to do with his team's domination of the Bills in the SB. If he didn't see that footage the game outcome would have been exactly the same. They were the far superior team that steamrolled the lesser opponent. The screen play that he happened to see footage of was probably the same play that the Bills ran during the season. If there was a variation to the play it is the same miniscule variation that all teams make during the season. All teams are aware that the opponent is reviewing their tapes. Most teams stick to what they do best with a slight adjustment. That is part of the game.

 

That's exactly what you are guilty of here. I actually have some sympathy for your perspective. If someone with an anti-Patriots bias posts something obviously inaccurate, that irritates me as much as it irritates you. But a blind reaction against that anti-Patriots bias is no more conducive to accuracy than the anti-Patriots bias itself. There is only one reliable way to be accurate. It's to relentlessly pursue the truth, while ignoring emotion, and ignoring the distraction of other people's biases.

 

What truth are you pursuing here. The Pats were involved in an infraction. That is acknowledged. You are promoting a theory that it made a difference in the outcomes. You say it did and I disagree. You are criticizing me for the same thing you are doing. We are both giving our opinions on an issue. There is no relentless pursuit of truth here because there is nothing more to discover about the issue. Now we are at the opinion stage. We simply disagree. If you are comfortable with your position , that is fine. I'm comfortable with my position.

 

You can tirelessly continue to pursue the truth as you see it. When you catch it let me know what the outcome is. Odds are that it is too elusive to get a firm grasp.

Edited September 4, 2013 by JohnC

[Doc]

While drafting Brady may have been luck how they managed him after drafting him wasn't. I bet there is at least a few late round QBs who would have made above average starters had they been given the right circumstances.

Outside of keeping him on the roster as the 3rd QB, they didn't manage him much. And again even though he was on their roster for a year, they still gave Bledsoe that 10-year $100M contract right before that fateful 2001 season, and it took Bledsoe missing most of the season for him to even get on the field.

while i get that the ring is what counts, theres a degree of irrationality(maybe?) here that im having a hard time wrapping my head around. isnt the fact that even without cheating they were arguably one of the best teams in nfl history somehow significant in rating them as undeniably great even without the tape? i dont know. i guess i dont get how in one breathe its tearing them down and in the next calling them greatest of all time.

I wouldn't say their post-cheating seasons would qualify them as "on of the best in nfl history." And it's plausible that that amazing 2007 season was thanks in large part to cheating, since they got caught right before the SB that season.

[Orton's Arm]

the one place i think we disagree on this is the idea that they were the only team doing whatever they could to get an edge. could their opponents have been 100% squeeky clean? sure. is it likely given what we know of the nfl? i dont think so. unless you believe that they are unique in their attempts to play at the edge or outside the rules it gets murky to quantify or even qualify the what ifs in a situation like this. i just dont think all these things are uniquely BB and they were never passed down from those above him, or the large number that have gone around the league after him. while taping might not be happening currently, i dont doubt for a second that most if not all teams go outside the rules somehow.

 

 

 

while i get that the ring is what counts, theres a degree of irrationality(maybe?) here that im having a hard time wrapping my head around. isnt the fact that even without cheating they were arguably one of the best teams in nfl history somehow significant in rating them as undeniably great even without the tape? i dont know. i guess i dont get how in one breathe its tearing them down and in the next calling them greatest of all time.

 

Below is a (partial) list of things GMs or coaches could do to give their team an unfair edge:

• Encouraging their players to injure opponents (like the Saints did)
  
• Videotaping the other team's signals
  
• Contacting soon-to-be free agents to start negotiating (tampering)
  
• Making steroids available to players, and helping them avoid detection

Some of these things could be done quietly. For example, let's say a non-Bills team contacted Byrd, and began dropping hints about possible contracts. This would be tampering and against the rules. But it wouldn't be in Byrd's interest to expose the rules violation. Due to the difficulty of detection, it's reasonable to suppose tampering may be rather common. But if we're assuming the Patriots' Super Bowl opponents are guilty of such tampering until proven innocent, we have to make the same assumption about the Patriots as well.

 

Other rules violations are easier to detect. If there's a bounty system put in place for injuring players, all it would take would be one disgruntled ex-player or ex-coach to blow the lid on the whole thing. With a bounty system or a steroid program, it's hard to prevent every player and coach from becoming aware of the program. That's a lot of potential leaks.

 

The reason the Patriots' cheating came to light is because they used cheating against the Jets. Some of the Jets' coaching staff were former Patriots coaches; and knew to look for cheating/video taping. The fact that other teams didn't know to look for video taping suggests to me that the Patriots' method of cheating was uncommon; and gave them an advantage other teams simply didn't have.

[Pneumonic]

Below is a (partial) list of things GMs or coaches could do to give their team an unfair edge:

• Encouraging their players to injure opponents (like the Saints did)
  
• Videotaping the other team's signals
  
• Contacting soon-to-be free agents to start negotiating (tampering)
  
• Making steroids available to players, and helping them avoid detection
  

Some of these things could be done quietly. For example, let's say a non-Bills team contacted Byrd, and began dropping hints about possible contracts. This would be tampering and against the rules. But it wouldn't be in Byrd's interest to expose the rules violation. Due to the difficulty of detection, it's reasonable to suppose tampering may be rather common. But if we're assuming the Patriots' Super Bowl opponents are guilty of such tampering until proven innocent, we have to make the same assumption about the Patriots as well.

 

Other rules violations are easier to detect. If there's a bounty system put in place for injuring players, all it would take would be one disgruntled ex-player or ex-coach to blow the lid on the whole thing. With a bounty system or a steroid program, it's hard to prevent every player and coach from becoming aware of the program. That's a lot of potential leaks.

 

The reason the Patriots' cheating came to light is because they used cheating against the Jets. Some of the Jets' coaching staff were former Patriots coaches; and knew to look for cheating/video taping. The fact that other teams didn't know to look for video taping suggests to me that the Patriots' method of cheating was uncommon; and gave them an advantage other teams simply didn't have.

The videotaping of opponents signals has been going on since Christ was a cowboy and isn't illegal.

 

The Pats method of videotaping (ie close-up instead of afar) is what got them into trouble. In retrospect, I am sure BB wishes he had kept his video guy away from the action like all the other teams do.

[NoSaint]

 

 

Below is a (partial) list of things GMs or coaches could do to give their team an unfair edge:

• Encouraging their players to injure opponents (like the Saints did)
  
• Videotaping the other team's signals
  
• Contacting soon-to-be free agents to start negotiating (tampering)
  
• Making steroids available to players, and helping them avoid detection

Some of these things could be done quietly. For example, let's say a non-Bills team contacted Byrd, and began dropping hints about possible contracts. This would be tampering and against the rules. But it wouldn't be in Byrd's interest to expose the rules violation. Due to the difficulty of detection, it's reasonable to suppose tampering may be rather common. But if we're assuming the Patriots' Super Bowl opponents are guilty of such tampering until proven innocent, we have to make the same assumption about the Patriots as well.

 

Other rules violations are easier to detect. If there's a bounty system put in place for injuring players, all it would take would be one disgruntled ex-player or ex-coach to blow the lid on the whole thing. With a bounty system or a steroid program, it's hard to prevent every player and coach from becoming aware of the program. That's a lot of potential leaks.

 

The reason the Patriots' cheating came to light is because they used cheating against the Jets. Some of the Jets' coaching staff were former Patriots coaches; and knew to look for cheating/video taping. The fact that other teams didn't know to look for video taping suggests to me that the Patriots' method of cheating was uncommon; and gave them an advantage other teams simply didn't have.

 

That's possible. Or other teams tend not to report knowing they have their own skeletons and handle it themselves?

 

Gregg Williams coached how many defenses without it coming out until a crazy ex quality guy went off the deepend? BB had how many players and assistant coaches around the league that would've known?

 

You'd be hardpressed to convince me about teams being squeaky clean and once that doors open - who's cheating is worse and how did it change outcomes is a tough discussion.

[Pneumonic]

That's possible. Or other teams tend not to report knowing they have their own skeletons and handle it themselves?

 

Gregg Williams coached how many defenses without it coming out until a crazy ex quality guy went off the deepend? BB had how many players and assistant coaches around the league that would've known?

 

You'd be hardpressed to convince me about teams being squeaky clean and once that doors open - who's cheating is worse and how did it change outcomes is a tough discussion.

 

Not to mention how big a pain the arse it would be to asterisk all of this leagues records and accomplishments dating back to day 1 due to "cheating"

Edited September 4, 2013 by Pneumonic

[Orton's Arm]

The videotaping of opponents signals has been going on since Christ was a cowboy and isn't illegal.

 

The Pats method of videotaping (ie close-up instead of afar) is what got them into trouble. In retrospect, I am sure BB wishes he had kept his video guy away from the action like all the other teams do.

 

I did some more research about this. A number of well-known football people stated that the Patriots' cheating probably didn't give them any significant advantage. I'm now much more open to the possibility that the Patriots would have won all three of those Super Bowls even without cheating.

 

I continue to believe that the Patriots are not adding young talent at a fast enough pace to sustain their dominance. That in no way detracts from the impressiveness of what they accomplished since 2000; nor the impressiveness of what they're likely to achieve between now and Brady's retirement. But these next few seasons probably mark the end of an era.

[JohnC]

The videotaping of opponents signals has been going on since Christ was a cowboy and isn't illegal.

 

The Pats method of videotaping (ie close-up instead of afar) is what got them into trouble. In retrospect, I am sure BB wishes he had kept his video guy away from the action like all the other teams do.

 

Just to buttress your point: ask yourself why do all teams have two or three people signaling in plays (all but one a dummy signal) ? It is also a common practice in the college game. Why is it standard practice for a HC to raise the clipboard to his mouth when talking to the qb on the sideline? That also happens in the college ranks. Nothing new is going on that the opposition isn't aware of. The Pats stretched the boundaries of a common practice. They got caught and paid a hefty price. What they did had little to do with the outcomes of any games.

 

If anyone wants to talk about cheating in the pro and college game then a bigger issue is faking injuries to slow down the game, and sometimes make strategic substitutions. This will become a bigger issue as more teams run a faster paced office, such as Kelly's at Philly.

Edited September 6, 2013 by JohnC

[l< j]

That they had success after they stopped cheating is not proof of greatness. It's proof that they are cheaters. I won't respect that.

 

kj