Patriot*s Ball-Washing taken to new heights by si.com

[Alphadawg7]

If the Patriots weren't favored by the media then how come we have an article about what MIGHT have happened if Brady played? WHO CARES!?

 

If the Patriots weren't favored by the media then how is that they're the Super Bowl favorite (in May no less) a year after they missed the playoffs, knowing that Tom Brady won't be 100% (in spite of what he says), and when THE Super Bowl Champions are returning practically all of their starters?

 

One, why do you care? Its May, and what else do they have to talk about other than Brady right now? First it was T.O. as it was the big story, then Farve, and now Brady is back on the field and its now the big story. Is there something else going on that warrants media coverage in any other NFL camps right now? No, becuase its May. If we had one of the greatest QB's of all time coming back from a huge injury, we would be getting coverage too, so relax.

 

Second, how can you even mention last year for one, and two, they won double digit games...so dont act like they were the bottom of the league last year because they missed the playoffs. They did this with a QB who had not started since High School, so that says the talent on that team is high, and when you add Brady back into it, give him MORE weapons than he had in 2007 when he was destroying the league, and give the two key weapons (Moss and Welker) now two full years in that system, there is no question they are the favorites and the story going into the season.

[VOR]

As for the tiresome cheatriots talk, they went 18-1 without video help. If you recall, many believe they ran up the scores in 2007 as a response to the Jets turning them in. They proved they could win just fine without the tapes.

Sure the Patriots went undefeated during the 2007 season. But they had arguably the greatest collection of talent in NFL history. And still they lost in the SB. Whereas in previous years, they didn't have the best talent and won 3 SB's.

 

The difference between winning and losing sometimes comes down to a slight edge (and no one is claiming that they won all their games by cheating). Belichick had been videotaping since he became head coach of the Patriots and continued to do it after getting warned in 2006. You don't do something for 8 years, and continue to do it after being threatened with serious consequences, if it doesn't benefit you.

[TimGraham]

If the Patriots weren't favored by the media then how come we have an article about what MIGHT have happened if Brady played? WHO CARES!?

 

15 of 16 ESPN power rankings voters, including myself, picked the Steelers No. 1 in the most recent poll.

 

So your theory that the media favors the Patriots is a little silly.

 

As for a what if article, I just wrote an article about LeBron James playing in the NFL that was one of the most popular stories in recent ESPN.com history. So a lot of people care about those types of stories.

 

If the Patriots weren't favored by the media then how is that they're the Super Bowl favorite (in May no less) a year after they missed the playoffs, knowing that Tom Brady won't be 100% (in spite of what he says), and when THE Super Bowl Champions are returning practically all of their starters?

 

Clearly you have no grasp of what regular people care about or how Las Vegas works.

 

On the former: You put Tom Brady, Brett Favre, Terrell Owens, Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant or Tiger Woods on TV or the cover of a magazine, people respond. Ben Roethlisberger? Not even close.

 

On the latter: The odds are set based not on who really is the favorite on paper but how people are going to bet. The Patriots will generate more action than the Steelers and more people are going to buy futures tickets with the hope the Patriots win the Super Bowl, not the Steelers. That's what odds mean. It has nothing to do with who is supposed to win. It's about making sure Las Vegas gets an equal number of dollars placed on either side.

[TimGraham]

Sure the Patriots went undefeated during the 2007 season. But they had arguably the greatest collection of talent in NFL history. And still they lost in the SB. Whereas in previous years, they didn't have the best talent and won 3 SB's.

 

The difference between winning and losing sometimes comes down to a slight edge (and no one is claiming that they won all their games by cheating). Belichick had been videotaping since he became head coach of the Patriots and continued to do it after getting warned in 2006. You don't do something for 8 years, and continue to do it after being threatened with serious consequences, if it doesn't benefit you.

 

That's why other coaches did it, too.

 

And there's a big 18 on the left side of that hyphen. You have every right to focus on the 1, because it's a significant 1. But to say them losing to the Giants in the Super Bowl proved they couldn't win without the tapes totally discounts the 18 games they won -- most of them lopsided.

[TimGraham]

One, why do you care? Its May, and what else do they have to talk about other than Brady right now? First it was T.O. as it was the big story, then Farve, and now Brady is back on the field and its now the big story. Is there something else going on that warrants media coverage in any other NFL camps right now? No, becuase its May. If we had one of the greatest QB's of all time coming back from a huge injury, we would be getting coverage too, so relax.

 

Second, how can you even mention last year for one, and two, they won double digit games...so dont act like they were the bottom of the league last year because they missed the playoffs. They did this with a QB who had not started since High School, so that says the talent on that team is high, and when you add Brady back into it, give him MORE weapons than he had in 2007 when he was destroying the league, and give the two key weapons (Moss and Welker) now two full years in that system, there is no question they are the favorites and the story going into the season.

 

That's exactly right. They won 11 games with a quarterback who hadn't started since high school.

 

They've added a future Hall of Famer.

 

Not that tough to understand why people think they'll challenge for the championship.

[VOR]

That's why other coaches did it, too.

Like...whom?

 

And there's a big 18 on the left side of that hyphen. You have every right to focus on the 1, because it's a significant 1. But to say them losing to the Giants in the Super Bowl proved they couldn't win without the tapes totally discounts the 18 games they won -- most of them lopsided.

I acknowledged the 18, saying that they had arguably one of the greatest collections of talent in the NFL and that illegal videotaping wasn't responsible for all of their wins. But that cheating obviously provides an advantage, and in some games, the difference between winning and losing.

[Mr. WEO]

That's why other coaches did it, too.

Ouch!

 

You are shoveling against the tide with these morons, Tim. To even mention the obvious sends them into insanity.

 

The irony is that they all keep moaning over all the coverage of the Pats, yet they can't stop posting about.....all the coverage of the Pats!

[The Big Cat]

That's exactly right. They won 11 games with a quarterback who hadn't started since high school.

 

They've added a future Hall of Famer.

 

Not that tough to understand why people think they'll challenge for the championship.

 

That's an inflated statement, if I ever heard one.

[TimGraham]

That's an inflated statement, if I ever heard one.

 

If you're going to tell me Tom Brady isn't going into the Hall of Fame, I am going make it a point to ignore every other thing you claim.

 

First ballot.

[The Big Cat]

If you're going to tell me Tom Brady isn't going into the Hall of Fame, I am going make it a point to ignore every other thing you claim.

 

First ballot.

 

My mistake, I thought you were talking about Fred Taylor, as I don't consider Brady "added" to the roster.

[MattM]

I've always found the headset stuff interesting, but I doubt the NFL lets them get away with it just because.

 

As for the rest of your post, I'm sorry. I've covered sports long enough and have gotten into more philosophical discussions that I can count, but when "league-wide officiating conspiracy" gets injected into the discourse, the conversation is over for me.

 

I might have thought that, too, until Donaghy and the Italian soccer ref scandal a couple of years back. I also know what I see when I watch games (especially these days with the aid of a DVR) and again, I implore a Pats fan to give me just one example of them losing on a controversial call or non-call late in a game, 'cuz I've got a whole bunch in the other direction. I've never once gotten an answer that jibes on that point. Interestingly, the one they always come back with is the Broncos playoff game a few years ago when there was a bad call against them on a long pass that led to a score. Unfortunately for them that was in the second quarter. I pick my example carefully because if you were going to fix a game that is when you would see it done--late in the game and only if it was a close game and only if the team that was "supposed to win" needed the help. Otherwise, why risk exposing yourself? As noted above, we've already seen one major US sport have a problem ref (and he tried to implicate others apparently) influencing games for money. In his case it was for gamblers, but gamblers aren't the only ones who would have an interest in a particular outcome--why owners, League or team executives and networks all come to mind as people with keen interests as to who wins and loses.

 

I stand by my view that this is all within the realm of the possible--whether it has happened, none of us here know for sure. It would be a stretch, admittedly, as conspiracies, particularly larger ones, are difficult to pull off, but to dismiss it out of hand as impossible is not correct in my view, particularly when it's already been done in similar leagues.

 

I also find it hard for an objective person to doubt that the Pats get beneficial treatment from the League--other recent examples in addition to the ones I mentioned and the NYT article mentioned and which you didn't address include Wilfork not getting suspended last year despite 4 fines during the course of the year for dirty play (yet Roy Williams get one game off for a couple of horse collar tackles the same year) and Nick Kaczur basically getting nothing from the League despite having intent to deal quantities of Oxy.

 

Don't take this the wrong way, Tim, because I actually like your reporting and I don't think this of you personally at all--what we're talking about in this thread is, in my mind, something that reasonable people can differ on, for ex. That said, isn't it possible that media outlets attached to networks with multi-billion dollar contracts with the League might have an incentive to downplay any potential real controversies of this sort with the NFL? I know you can't answer this in a public forum, but I'd be very curious if you or any of your ESPN buddies had ever been told to kill or downplay certain stories due to casting a negative light on the League? I have journalist friends at some major institutions and from that it doesn't sound like it's impossible to me. There doesn't seem to be much left in the way of independent journalism these days and the current newspaper crisis won't help in that regard at all, I'm afraid.

 

PS You want to see a great example of the BS calls I was referencing above and one that few people paid attention to at the time and which doesn't involve the Bills? Go back and watch the Texans-Pats game from 2003 where the Pats won in OT. I imagine that ESPN has tapes of all of the League's games. I was watching that game on NFL Sunday ticket. Brady threw a deep pick late seemingly sealing/turning the game. Lo and behold, way late and way away from the action, some kind of defensive penalty was called on the Texans. Why I remember that one so much is that the announcers didn't seem to understand what the call could possibly be and were really flummoxed by the whole thing. Sure enough, Brady brought them back to win the game shortly thereafter. I just shrugged, even then used to such things happening for certain teams.....

[TimGraham]

Like...whom?

 

From the Sept. 17, 2007 Boston Globe ...

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...ew_deal/?page=1

 

After seeing the footage, former Cowboys and Dolphins coach Jimmy Johnson - who works as a host on Fox's pregame show - said on the show: "This is exactly how I was told to do it 18 years ago by a Kansas City Chiefs scout. I tried it, but I didn't think it helped us."

 

Johnson added that "every team has got a file on the other team. I used to send an intern up to the opposing coach's box after the game and go through the trash. Because after the game, what do they do? They take their game plan and their scouting reports and throw them away. My intern would get all of that stuff and put it right in the file."

 

Johnson, who has fished with Belichick on the Florida Keys in recent years, defended the coach to a degree.

 

"Bill Belichick was wrong because he videotaped signals after a memo was sent out to all of the teams saying not to do it," he said. "But what irritates me is hearing some reactions from players and coaches. These players don't know what their coaches are doing. And some of the coaches have selective amnesia because I know for a fact there were various teams doing this. That's why the memo was sent to everybody. That doesn't make him [belichick] right, but a lot of teams are doing this."

[The Big Cat]

I might have thought that, too, until Donaghy and the Italian soccer ref scandal a couple of years back. I also know what I see when I watch games (especially these days with the aid of a DVR) and again, I implore a Pats fan to give me just one example of them losing on a controversial call or non-call late in a game, 'cuz I've got a whole bunch in the other direction. I've never once gotten an answer that jibes on that point. Interestingly, the one they always come back with is the Broncos playoff game a few years ago when there was a bad call against them on a long pass that led to a score. Unfortunately for them that was in the second quarter. I pick my example carefully because if you were going to fix a game that is when you would see it done--late in the game and only if it was a close game and only if the team that was "supposed to win" needed the help. Otherwise, why risk exposing yourself? As noted above, we've already seen one major US sport have a problem ref (and he tried to implicate others apparently) influencing games for money. In his case it was for gamblers, but gamblers aren't the only ones who would have an interest in a particular outcome--why owners, League or team executives and networks all come to mind as people with keen interests as to who wins and loses.

 

I stand by my view that this is all within the realm of the possible--whether it has happened, none of us here know for sure. It would be a stretch, admittedly, as conspiracies, particularly larger ones, are difficult to pull off, but to dismiss it out of hand as impossible is not correct in my view, particularly when it's already been done in similar leagues.

 

I also find it hard for an objective person to doubt that the Pats get beneficial treatment from the League--other recent examples in addition to the ones I mentioned and the NYT article mentioned and which you didn't address include Wilfork not getting suspended last year despite 4 fines during the course of the year for dirty play (yet Roy Williams get one game off for a couple of horse collar tackles the same year) and Nick Kaczur basically getting nothing from the League despite having intent to deal quantities of Oxy.

 

Don't take this the wrong way, Tim, because I actually like your reporting and I don't think this of you personally at all--what we're talking about in this thread is, in my mind, something that reasonable people can differ on, for ex. That said, isn't it possible that media outlets attached to networks with multi-billion dollar contracts with the League might have an incentive to downplay any potential real controversies of this sort with the NFL? I know you can't answer this in a public forum, but I'd be very curious if you or any of your ESPN buddies had ever been told to kill or downplay certain stories due to casting a negative light on the League? I have journalist friends at some major institutions and from that it doesn't sound like it's impossible to me. There doesn't seem to be much left in the way of independent journalism these days and the current newspaper crisis won't help in that regard at all, I'm afraid.

 

PS You want to see a great example of the BS calls I was referencing above and one that few people paid attention to at the time and which doesn't involve the Bills? Go back and watch the Texans-Pats game from 2003 where the Pats won in OT. I imagine that ESPN has tapes of all of the League's games. I was watching that game on NFL Sunday ticket. Brady threw a deep pick late seemingly sealing/turning the game. Lo and behold, way late and way away from the action, some kind of defensive penalty was called on the Texans. Why I remember that one so much is that the announcers didn't seem to understand what the call could possibly be and were really flummoxed by the whole thing. Sure enough, Brady brought them back to win the game shortly thereafter. I just shrugged, even then used to such things happening for certain teams.....

 

Or check out Whitner "out of bounds" in the fourth quarter after he picked Brady in his first professional game. His foot misses the sideline by about two feet.

[TimGraham]

MattM ... No offense, but I'm not even remotely interested. I covered the Sabres for six years. I know all the conspiracy angles out there that the corporate sports world hates small-market Buffalo. Conspiracy theories are a crutch to carry on a loser's mentality. That's just my opinion.

 

Three rules I have, especially when seated at the bar, I never talk religion, politics or conspiracy theories.

 

As for Tim Donaghy, that was one ref. To claim a league-wide conspiracy is not remotely the same.

[timba]

It's a business and the patriots* sell. Doesn't mean I don't mega-loathe them any less... I just wish the Bills sold as well.

[Philly McButterpants]

You must be kidding with that statement above right? Do you even know how bad Trent was in his last 8 games? Lets play a game called "Who am I?" I have 3 TD's and 10 turnovers in 4 divisional games with one game under a 50 QB rating, another at 50 and the other two in the sixties and 70's...give up? Answer is Trent Edwards.

 

He was terrible in 6 of his last 8 games and just ok in the other 2...so how do you say we win 10 or 12 games if he doesnt get hurt? Let me ask you this, how many games did he win in his last 8?

 

Trent may be better this year, and I hope he is, but last year was not good

 

Certainly the Jets and Dolphins games where JP was VERY bad. . . . Toss in the Cards game for the psychological factor. I'm not defending Trent. My point was that it's beyond ridiculous (oops, forgot where I was) I mean re-diculous, to speculate that Brady would have been the league AND Super Bowl MVP and that the Pat*s would have won the SB if had not been injured.

 

BTW, Trent won the Broncos game, and aside from the 1st Qtr, looked pretty darned good.

[TheMadCap]

From the Sept. 17, 2007 Boston Globe ...

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...ew_deal/?page=1

 

After seeing the footage, former Cowboys and Dolphins coach Jimmy Johnson - who works as a host on Fox's pregame show - said on the show: "This is exactly how I was told to do it 18 years ago by a Kansas City Chiefs scout. I tried it, but I didn't think it helped us."

 

Johnson added that "every team has got a file on the other team. I used to send an intern up to the opposing coach's box after the game and go through the trash. Because after the game, what do they do? They take their game plan and their scouting reports and throw them away. My intern would get all of that stuff and put it right in the file."

 

Johnson, who has fished with Belichick on the Florida Keys in recent years, defended the coach to a degree.

 

"Bill Belichick was wrong because he videotaped signals after a memo was sent out to all of the teams saying not to do it," he said. "But what irritates me is hearing some reactions from players and coaches. These players don't know what their coaches are doing. And some of the coaches have selective amnesia because I know for a fact there were various teams doing this. That's why the memo was sent to everybody. That doesn't make him [belichick] right, but a lot of teams are doing this."

 

That may be so, but the fact is, the Patriots* were the only ones actually fined and stripped of a draft pick in the biggest punishment handed down in league history. I haven't seen anyone else getting punished by the league so (IMO) there really is no comparison. The league sent a letter to everyone, and the coach of the Patriots* ignored it, and when he got caught made a lame excuse that he "misinterpreted the rules". Wonder if that would work if I got pulled by the cops for speeding, "gee officer, I misinterpreted the Speed Limit sign that was posted". Doubtfull.

 

Look guys, I didn't mean to start a whole thing here (about something that has been beat way past death) but outside of NE, many fans consider the Pats* of the last decade to be the same thing as the baseball steroid users. In a class* by themselves. There is no debate that the Bills are light-years behind the Pats* in just about every way (except for fan loyalty), but this doesn't change the fact that they were flat out, cold busted breaking the rules, were punished, and the NFL tried to make the whole thing go away as fast as possible.

 

Say, did you see that fantastic new Patriot* Place???

[VOR]

From the Sept. 17, 2007 Boston Globe ...

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...ew_deal/?page=1

 

After seeing the footage, former Cowboys and Dolphins coach Jimmy Johnson - who works as a host on Fox's pregame show - said on the show: "This is exactly how I was told to do it 18 years ago by a Kansas City Chiefs scout. I tried it, but I didn't think it helped us."

 

Johnson added that "every team has got a file on the other team. I used to send an intern up to the opposing coach's box after the game and go through the trash. Because after the game, what do they do? They take their game plan and their scouting reports and throw them away. My intern would get all of that stuff and put it right in the file."

 

Johnson, who has fished with Belichick on the Florida Keys in recent years, defended the coach to a degree.

 

"Bill Belichick was wrong because he videotaped signals after a memo was sent out to all of the teams saying not to do it," he said. "But what irritates me is hearing some reactions from players and coaches. These players don't know what their coaches are doing. And some of the coaches have selective amnesia because I know for a fact there were various teams doing this. That's why the memo was sent to everybody. That doesn't make him [belichick] right, but a lot of teams are doing this."

Wait, your evidence is Jimmy Johnson and what he claims he heard others did 17 years ago, and what he believes is happening now, without naming names, any other teams being implicated, or anyone else corroborating his claims? That might work for mouth-breathers like Mr. WEO, but it's proof of nothing. Oh and Johnson and Belichick are fishing buddies, which speaks to his credibility.

 

And by the same token, assuming that everyone did cheat, I could say "everyone used steroids so get off Barry Bonds' and Mark McGwire's backs." How do you think that would play to the masses?

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Understood, Tim, but what say you to things like this:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/sports/f...ttee&st=cse

 

There were plenty of other articles around the time of Spygate in which other NFL folks, named (Jack Del Rio and Rod Marinelli each accusing the Pats of some bizarre headset problems at key times of the game at Gillette come to mind) and unnamed, accused the Pats of more than just Spygate. Doesn't it stand to reason that if a team that had received a very clear memo in July 2007 saying don't tape your opponents then goes and does so two months later that said team might also be interested in cheating in other ways?

 

Personally, I think that the League these days is a bit like the latter stages of Orwell's "Animal Farm"--"all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". Dr. Z in his column (God bless him) during Spygate wondered aloud whether Kraft's status as a big shot owner meant that matter got handled much differently than other owners would have had it handled. Things like the Pats playing the Bills four years in a row off the bye week (natural odds of that happening randomly about 1 in 4000) or the Pats getting to play back to back West Coast games twice last year so that they wouldn't have to travel back east come to mind. This year, as soon as I heard Marshawn would likely be suspended, I said to my "I'll bet you $100 we open up with New England this year". It's just so predictable at this point.

 

Have you ever wondered how one team seems to get more calls and non-calls late in close games than any team in recent memory? I don't know if you were covering the Bills during the "just give it to them game", but there have been at least three Bills-Pats games in the last ten years that basically came down to horrific officiating (usually multiple calls/no calls going one way in a close game) in one direction only. If this were truly random, shouldn't that even out over time? I've asked Pats fans this many times in many fora and never gotten an answer--name me one close game that they lost late in the game on a controversial (and I mean controversial outside of Boston) call. They can't seem to do that, yet I and most other close fans of the sport can name close to ten that they won that way. That Baltimore Monday nighter in 2007 was a joke--once again, as soon as the Pats got the ball back I turned to my wife and said "the Pats will march down the field and score. If they need it, they will get help from the refs on the way." Again, it's just so predictable at this point.

 

Isn't it possible that very rich and powerful men who are used to winning at everything they do will be so addicted to winning that the line between moral and immoral gets blurred? We see it all the time in other areas of life, why would sports be any different? Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I'm just going by what I'm seeing with my own eyes, like Nate Clements being nowhere near out of bounds yet an early whistle wiping 6 off the board in a close game yet again......

Firstly, thanks for a great post MattM.

 

I don't think there's any argument that the Patriots are a great organization. They are.

 

I also think that we live in a world where shallow analysis and marquee teams and players carry the day as far as news coverage is concerned. Yes most fans (because most are casual) would rather hear another Brady/Favre story. Personally I'd rather read about (for instance) how Glenn Dorsey is supposed to fit into the new Kansas City scheme (nose tackle or end), where Ziggy Hood might line up for the Steelers (nose tackle or end), or why Denver drafted a pure defensive end, Robert Ayers, to play linebacker in their new 3-4 scheme. To me these stories are infinitely more interesting than yet another Patriots story but I'm in the minority. That said I don't particularly care that the Patriots continue to be the poster boys for the NFL. It's a lowest common denominator world and there's other ways for me to occupy my time.

 

One thing I'll disagree with you on Tim is the "treatment" that New England receives from the NFL (not from the media). There is large amounts of compelling evidence that they have and continue to receive preferential treatment. The only question to me is whether it is intentional or not. Many of the incidents I allude to have been outlined above. In addition there have been episodes such as the "Tuck Rule Game" ruling which no matter how much the NFL wants to spin it was a gross miscarriage of justice (Brady had brought the ball down and had both hands on the ball when he was stripped), and the slap on the wrist fine to Wilfork after his cheap shot (forearm shot) at Losman's knees.

 

If you don't want to talk about religion, politics, or conspiracy theories, that's fine. I don't think there's a conspiracy theory per se but I do believe that the NFL and its officials (like some other teams in other sports) end up giving the Patriots preferential treatment. It makes me wonder why this is so. I believe that evidence for this has been quantified and it is hard to ignore, no matter how much some people would rather not talk about it. I'm not a paranoid of suspicious person but like MattM I can only go by what I see.

[The Big Cat]

One, why do you care? Its May, and what else do they have to talk about other than Brady right now? First it was T.O. as it was the big story, then Farve, and now Brady is back on the field and its now the big story. Is there something else going on that warrants media coverage in any other NFL camps right now? No, becuase its May. If we had one of the greatest QB's of all time coming back from a huge injury, we would be getting coverage too, so relax.

 

Second, how can you even mention last year for one, and two, they won double digit games...so dont act like they were the bottom of the league last year because they missed the playoffs. They did this with a QB who had not started since High School, so that says the talent on that team is high, and when you add Brady back into it, give him MORE weapons than he had in 2007 when he was destroying the league, and give the two key weapons (Moss and Welker) now two full years in that system, there is no question they are the favorites and the story going into the season.

 

 

So, in a league with 1696 players (more now before the rosters are trimmed to 53), the ONLY news makers are Favre, Brady, and Owens?

 

Thank you for proving my point.