Tim Graham defends the Patriots claim to

[Lori]

No, Lori. I'm confident he's serious.

 

This is a guy who doesn't think video cameras existed 20 years ago even though I remember doing projects with them in school when I was in seventh grade. That was 1983, and the technology wasn't new.

 

Whatever. This thread only proves the misconceptions out there regarding Spygate. We've had accusations the Patriots new the Rams' plays in the Super Bowl, the Boston Herald is making up stories that DILUTE their own scoop and assertions Jay Fiedler is backing the company line because he's incapable of speaking his mind.

 

To restate what Herm Edwards, another of the so-called aggrieved, who actually could be seen waving at the Patriots cameras (and didn't turn them in because he didn't think it was a big deal), told me last month:

 

"If you're naïve to believe that helped him win a Super Bowl, you're kidding yourself. I don't believe that."

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed seeing them get whacked with the $500K fine and the first-round pick, and I still employ an asterisk from time to time (mostly to push the buttons of any Patsfan trolls who wander into our neck of the woods).

 

But whether or not it helped them -- and despite the insiders' opinions you've shared with us, I do think there's some room for reasoned debate there -- the league isn't sending repo men after their Lombardi Trophies. Given that, I see no real point to obsessing over it two years later.

 

Then again, this is the board that still fires up a Flutie/Johnson flamewar every now and then just for old times' sake. Knowing your opinion on Spygate ahead of time, I had a pretty good idea how this thread was going to turn out.

 

So ... good luck with that.

[BillnutinHouston]

Good point.

 

I now await Tim Graham's assigned story defending the greatness of Barry Bonds.

 

Great post!

[TimGraham]

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed seeing them get whacked with the $500K fine and the first-round pick, and I still employ an asterisk from time to time (mostly to push the buttons of any Patsfan trolls who wander into our neck of the woods).

 

But whether or not it helped them -- and despite the insiders' opinions you've shared with us, I do think there's some room for reasoned debate there -- the league isn't sending repo men after their Lombardi Trophies. Given that, I see no real point to obsessing over it two years later.

 

Then again, this is the board that still fires up a Flutie/Johnson flamewar every now and then just for old times' sake. Knowing your opinion on Spygate ahead of time, I had a pretty good idea how this thread was going to turn out.

 

So ... good luck with that.

 

Agree on all counts, Lori.

 

As someone mentioned as a way to dismiss the notion the Patriots are a dynasty, they won their last Super Bowl after the 2004 season.

 

To be harping on what impact Spygate may or may not have made on their success almost five years ago is about as relevant as Flutie-Johnson.

[Flbillsfan#1]

No, Lori. I'm confident he's serious.

 

This is a guy who doesn't think video cameras existed 20 years ago even though I remember doing projects with them in school when I was in seventh grade. That was 1983, and the technology wasn't new.

 

Whatever. This thread only proves the misconceptions out there regarding Spygate. We've had accusations the Patriots new the Rams' plays in the Super Bowl, the Boston Herald is making up stories that DILUTE their own scoop and assertions Jay Fiedler is backing the company line because he's incapable of speaking his mind.

 

To restate what Herm Edwards, another of the so-called aggrieved, who actually could be seen waving at the Patriots cameras (and didn't turn them in because he didn't think it was a big deal), told me last month:

 

"If you're naïve to believe that helped him win a Super Bowl, you're kidding yourself. I don't believe that."

I'm not saying video cameras did not exist in 1983, but they were HUGE & cumbersome. I bought my 1st VCR sometime between 1984 & 87. It was a Sony Betamax (MUCH BETTER picture than VHS) & the remote control was attached to it with a CORD. So my point is it would not be an easy thing to hide if you were filming. If anything Tim the article in question just points out the VALUE of filming your opponent which tells us WHY Belicheat CONTINUED with the practice when he was TOLD not to. I still have not heard of ANY other team that did this other than the Pats* including the article you linked.

[TimGraham]

Good point.

 

I now await Tim Graham's assigned story defending the greatness of Barry Bonds.

 

Zing!

[Flbillsfan#1]

Please don't tell me you're serious. The Boston Herald, the paper which originally BROKE the Rams walkthrough story -- and which still employs John Tomase, the writer who made Matt Walsh famous -- is now a "Pats* site"? That's like calling Jerry Sullivan a shill for the Bills' front office.

Good point Lori.

[TimGraham]

I'm not saying video cameras did not exist in 1983, but they were HUGE & cumbersome. I bought my 1st VCR sometime between 1984 & 87. It was a Sony Betamax (MUCH BETTER picture than VHS) & the remote control was attached to it with a CORD. So my point is it would not be an easy thing to hide if you were filming. If anything Tim the article in question just points out the VALUE of filming your opponent which tells us WHY Belicheat CONTINUED with the practice when he was TOLD not to. I still have not heard of ANY other team that did this other than the Pats* including the article you linked.

 

So huge and cumbersome a seventh grader could carry it on his shoulder in 1983.

 

Ever hear of a tripod? That's what the Patriots used for their mind-boggling, 22nd century technology. As for your Betamax with remote control on a cord ... That wasn't a recorder. It was a tape player. I hope you didn't try to film your wedding or birth of your children with a piece of equipment that didn't have a lens.

 

The Patriots didn't hide their cameras. Nobody ever accused them of hiding their cameras. Teams are allowed to film all sorts of things during a game. What matters is where they're pointed.

[NewHampshireBillsFan]

It would be a big relief to me if I could convince myself that Belcheat's cheating was no big deal. But the way it was covered up by Goodell and the way the whole NFL community (league, major media, and former coaches) have insisted that it was no big deal makes it more clear that the cheating was significant. What bothers me most is the NFL community seem like they are Belicheat*'s defense attorneys when they comment about the situation. They try to find ways to minimize the seriousness of the charges instead of just speaking candidly to the charges.

 

1.) Belicheat* did illegal videotaping for years and even in one case (Detroit game) resumed videotaping after the officials told them they had to stop when Detroit complained. Belicheat* is certainly no idiot so it must have meant a lot to HIM* to be able to cheat. Does Belicheat* know what is important to him* or do we know better what is important to him* in winning.

 

2.) Common sense from following football for decades would convince anyone that even knowing say 70% of the plays what defense a team would run would be a huge advantage for the offense. It is ridiculous to argue that that wouldn't be a big advantage for NE*.

[Flbillsfan#1]

Agree on all counts, Lori.

 

As someone mentioned as a way to dismiss the notion the Patriots are a dynasty, they won their last Super Bowl after the 2004 season.

 

To be harping on what impact Spygate may or may not have made on their success almost five years ago is about as relevant as Flutie-Johnson.

So in your opinion time diminishes CHEATING? If that were the case there are some GREAT baseball players that played for the Sox that should be in the HOF.

[Dan]

It would be a big relief to me if I could convince myself that Belcheat's cheating was no big deal. But the way it was covered up by Goodell and the way the whole NFL community (league, major media, and former coaches) have insisted that it was no big deal makes it more clear that the cheating was significant. What bothers me most is the NFL community seem like they are Belicheat*'s defense attorneys when they comment about the situation. They try to find ways to minimize the seriousness of the charges instead of just speaking candidly to the charges.

 

1.) Belicheat* did illegal videotaping for years and even in one case (Detroit game) resumed videotaping after the officials told them they had to stop when Detroit complained. Belicheat* is certainly no idiot so it must have meant a lot to HIM* to be able to cheat. Does Belicheat* know what is important to him* or do we know better what is important to him* in winning.

 

2.) Common sense from following football for decades would convince anyone that even knowing say 70% of the plays what defense a team would run would be a huge advantage for the offense. It is ridiculous to argue that that wouldn't be a big advantage for NE*.

Seriously, stop and read that and think for a minute. ... So, the fact that the league, the media and former coaches insist that its no big deal, that's what makes you think its a big deal?

 

I'll be the first to wonder how important the taping was, but if anything, the fact that everyone says its no big deal is what makes me think ... well maybe it really isn't/wasn't that big of a deal.

[The_Philster]

It would be a big relief to me if I could convince myself that Belcheat's cheating was no big deal. But the way it was covered up by Goodell and the way the whole NFL community (league, major media, and former coaches) have insisted that it was no big deal makes it more clear that the cheating was significant. What bothers me most is the NFL community seem like they are Belicheat*'s defense attorneys when they comment about the situation. They try to find ways to minimize the seriousness of the charges instead of just speaking candidly to the charges.

 

1.) Belicheat* did illegal videotaping for years and even in one case (Detroit game) resumed videotaping after the officials told them they had to stop when Detroit complained. Belicheat* is certainly no idiot so it must have meant a lot to HIM* to be able to cheat. Does Belicheat* know what is important to him* or do we know better what is important to him* in winning.

 

2.) Common sense from following football for decades would convince anyone that even knowing say 70% of the plays what defense a team would run would be a huge advantage for the offense. It is ridiculous to argue that that wouldn't be a big advantage for NE*.

I agree...they gave the Pats a little bit of a punishment but didn't really send a message with a severe punishment because to do so might tarnish the image of the league and the Pats*' Super Bowl titles.

Let me get one thing straight...the Pats* have had a talented team for most of the last decade...but the cheating they've been involved in (Spygate, The Just Give It To Them Game) has definitely helped them get their championships. And let's not forget, it's not just Belichick...Pete Carroll was the head coach when Shawn Jefferson caught a pass clearly short of the marker AND out of bounds yet two nearby officials "just gave it to them." Now, the Hail Mary pass interference call on Henry Jones I can write off to Terry MacAuley being an overofficious idiot (though if anyone was interfered with on that play, it was Thomas Smith), but Shawn Jefferson's phantom catch...I really can't. It was obvious in real time and the officials were close enough to see that Jefferson went down out of bounds.

As long as Robert Kraft owns that team, anything they do that's just a little questionable is something I have to wonder about....about whether he paid off any officials

[Flbillsfan#1]

So huge and cumbersome a seventh grader could carry it on his shoulder in 1983.

 

Ever hear of a tripod? That's what the Patriots used for their mind-boggling, 22nd century technology. As for your Betamax with remote control on a cord ... That wasn't a recorder. It was a tape player. I hope you didn't try to film your wedding or birth of your children with a piece of equipment that didn't have a lens.

 

The Patriots didn't hide their cameras. Nobody ever accused them of hiding their cameras. Teams are allowed to film all sorts of things during a game. What matters is where they're pointed.

Actually it was a recorder. it could record TV chanels & a camera was available that could be hooked up to it. Many people used them for just as you said Weddings & such. My point about the SIZE is you can much more easily tell where it is pointed with a LARGE camera.

[Flbillsfan#1]

Seriously, stop and read that and think for a minute. ... So, the fact that the league, the media and former coaches insist that its no big deal, that's what makes you think its a big deal?

 

I'll be the first to wonder how important the taping was, but if anything, the fact that everyone says its no big deal is what makes me think ... well maybe it really isn't/wasn't that big of a deal.

That is EXACTLY what Goodell & the league want you to think. True or not.

[BillnutinHouston]

the league isn't sending repo men after their Lombardi Trophies. Given that, I see no real point to obsessing over it two years later.

 

The league has a number of critical reasons not to call into question the Pats' Super Bowl victory - only one among them is the very legitimacy of the league itself. To use the NFL's affirmation of the Pats* win to support the case that their videotaping offense was minor, is weak to say the least, and it makes you look like you're sucking up to the (media) establishment.

[Lori]

The league has a number of critical reasons not to call into question the Pats' Super Bowl victory - only one among them is the very legitimacy of the league itself. To use the NFL's affirmation of the Pats* win to support the case that their videotaping offense was minor, is weak to say the least, and it makes you look like you're sucking up to the (media) establishment.

Interesting edit. Let's try that paragraph again, including the part you left out:

But whether or not it helped them -- and despite the insiders' opinions you've shared with us, I do think there's some room for reasoned debate there -- the league isn't sending repo men after their Lombardi Trophies. Given that, I see no real point to obsessing over it two years later.

Tim is using Edwards and Fiedler, the "insiders" to whom I referred, to make the point that it wasn't a big deal. I think there's room for debate. But no matter how much we dislike it, the record book isn't changing any time soon, so I've chosen to find other sources of stress in my life. Not quite sure where you drew the conclusion that I think "their videotaping offense was minor," but I hope you didn't draw it in ink.

[VOR]

Yeah, it wasn't a big deal. That's why the Commish docked the Patriots a 1st rounder, and fined Belichick $500K and the Patriots $250K, which is the maximum penalty he could levy. This after hurriedly destroying the videotapes. After the NFL (via Ray Anderson, Executive VP of football operations) circulated a memo saying that illegal videotaping would be punished severely, reportedly because the Patriots were nabbed by the Packers and Giants on separate occasions. Again, who does something if it's of little to no advantage, for 8 years, and if there are serious consequences?

 

If it were truly "no big deal," Goodell would have allowed the videotapes to be examined, said that "all teams do it" to minimize the bad press/suspicion toward their flagship team, and given them a slap on the wrist, such as taking-away a 5th rounder, like the 49'ers for tampering ("everyone does it" and "it's no big deal") with Lance Briggs.

 

But hey, Barry Bonds did steroids. So what? Everyone did them. And they were no big deal. They can't make you hit a ball. I know everyone hates him because he's a prick, but he's no more of one than Belichick. So get off his back.[/facetiousness]

[McD]

How do you steal the other team's "offensive signals"?

 

And why did BB list Brady as "questionable" for, what, 50 games? We laugh at it--it is absurd. But he "must have thought it gave him an advantage, otherwise why would he do it?"

 

So everyone is supposed to believe Kraft wouldn't allow any press into the room unless they agreed to whitewash the spygate scandal?

 

As in videoing plays....it was mostly on the new tech side. If you're able to hear what the play coming in is, you have an advantage.

[PromoTheRobot]

The same reason other teams did it. Just in case. It's all about leaving no stone unturned.

 

Why do the Bills hold open tryouts every year when it never results in a worthy player?

 

If it's not legal then it's cheating, even if the benefit is negligable. Holding open tryouts is not cheating. If it's no big deal, then why did the NFL create rules against it? The competition committee obviously thought it was worth prohibiting.

 

You also claim other teams do it. Can you offer proof? You quote Jay Fiedler but he is talking about stealing sognals by eye, not by video. The NFL and the media covering can downplay this all they want. To me and millions of other fans the * asterisk is deserved.

 

PTR

[McD]

This whole thread is getting ridiculous. To me I see people here who just want answers to why the scandal was just "dropped" without ANY real investigation, and then you have people who just want it to "go away" because it's "in the past". I really dont stress over this at all...I'm through worrying about it, but it came at the price of my NFL allegience. However, I have issues with people who won't see both sides of the debate. The big issue I have is that people will dismiss the whole thing because Jay Fieldler's opinion is that it didn't help them win games....well thanks Jay. Were you in the Pats film room when they disected your plays. Were you aware they took plays right out of headsets and also messed with the other teams communications? No, probably not and you'd be chastised by the rest of the NFL for going against the "company line" regardless if you're still an active player or not. Of course, he could be totally right and "may" not have helped the Pats win at all.

 

I can see both sides and have no problem listening to the "other side", I only ask everyone do the same here. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth. I do have serious questions regarding why Belicheck would continue to "cheat" if there was no real benefit to doing it. I've not heard any good reasonings to why he would continue. Obviously, there's something there. Has anyone had a situation where telling a lie or keeping truth from a group of people was actually more beneficial then telling them the truth? Of course you have...do you have parents? Ever see them get into a serious argument? Did they both smile and tell you everything is alright, just so you feel better? Sure they did...well, I bet most of the time

 

Anyway it's a silly argument to say "well Jay Fiedler an Herm Edwards said so, so it must be Gospel." All I'm saying in response to that is that there very well could have been a company policy stating that the NFL saw no issue and it would be in the BEST INTEREST OF THE NFL TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. Fiedler is a retired player who recieves a pension right? What happens to his pension when the league takes a hit? You don't know? Go ask Enron's employees what happens to pensions when the company does porrly. Again, there's so much more going on that we aren't privy too, but I'm all ears in listening to find out what it might be. That's what makes these boards so much fun.

 

McD

[NewHampshireBillsFan]

Seriously, stop and read that and think for a minute. ... So, the fact that the league, the media and former coaches insist that its no big deal, that's what makes you think its a big deal?

 

I'll be the first to wonder how important the taping was, but if anything, the fact that everyone says its no big deal is what makes me think ... well maybe it really isn't/wasn't that big of a deal.

 

Why did Belicheat* cheat for at least 8 years if cheating didn't help Belicheat* win? Most are agreed he is a brilliant coach and talent evaluator so he already has a clear edge over most coaches and organizations. And to put it mildly the officials are not unkind to the NE* franchise in the way penalties are called on the opposition. So why cheat unless Belicheat is simply a pathological cheater* who cheats because it is his nature. That may be somewhat true but I think Belicheat* is able to rank in terms of importance what it takes to win and clearly the measures they used, illegal videotaping and miking, shutting off opponents headsets on offense at crucial moments of the game, etc. Belicheat* felt were factors in helping him win.

 

The point is you either respect Belicheat* or you don't. I respect him* and therefore feel that if he* cheated then clearly there was a noticeable advantage in cheating or he* wouldn't have taken the risk to do it. If the putative best coach* in the game cheats then cheating must be advantageous to the best coach* of the game. Who are we to say it wasn't a big deal? Are you saying Belicheat* was an idiot to cheat? I wouldn't have the nerve to do that because his knowledge of football is light years ahead of mine and if he* says we are going to cheat to help us win then give him credit that cheating helped him* win.