Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

GorillaSam

D Vermeil is ON THE MONEY!

Recommended Posts

But this isn't a court of law, no laws were broken, and the Patriots admitted their wrongdoing/accepted their punishment without even appealing.

I don't think it would have been weird of them to keep it and I don't think it's strange they got rid of it.

But now you see that new evidence is surfacing and now the old evidence can't be referenced back to. It was foolish of Goodell to think that this issue was over so quickly. I understand he tried to deal with the problem and put it behind him but he still handled things rather hasteilly.

Besides, isn't the NFL subject to external/internal audits and all types of other stuff like this? Wouldn't something like this be investigated as a possible cheating ring to determine if games are being manipulated in the NFL. As absurd as that sounds isn't that something that could be investigated considering the amount of money that can possibly be involved in something like that. I know many companies go through audits and stuff like that but I'm not sure if the NFL is subject to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Link

God, why are people listening to media tools fishing for stories instead of Coaches like Vermeil and Madden who have both said THE SAME EXACT THING.

I haven't heard ONE coach analyst come out and rip the Patriots for Spygate.

America is SO NAIVE to believe this incident is limited to the Patriots.

heck, Matt Walsh was hired by PETE CARROL in 1998! Yet nobody talks about that...

I guess Belichick's name is just easier to modify into some sort of cheating pun...clever...

Funny how you picked quotes that were convenient.

He also said (IIRC) that people wouldn't do it if they didn't feel it would give them some sort of advantage. If you wouldn't gain from it, why would you bother risking suspension/fines/worse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But now you see that new evidence is surfacing and now the old evidence can't be referenced back to. It was foolish of Goodell to think that this issue was over so quickly. I understand he tried to deal with the problem and put it behind him but he still handled things rather hasteilly.

Besides, isn't the NFL subject to external/internal audits and all types of other stuff like this? Wouldn't something like this be investigated as a possible cheating ring to determine if games are being manipulated in the NFL. As absurd as that sounds isn't that something that could be investigated considering the amount of money that can possibly be involved in something like that. I know many companies go through audits and stuff like that but I'm not sure if the NFL is subject to that.

Like I said, I think you're looking far to deeply into it. This is a common thing in the NFL and the practice of stealing signals is as old as the game itself. The video camera is just a new wrinkle they don't want to allow.

There's no mass scandal, cover-up, cheating ring, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said, I think you're looking far to deeply into it. This is a common thing in the NFL and the practice of stealing signals is as old as the game itself. The video camera is just a new wrinkle they don't want to allow.

There's no mass scandal, cover-up, cheating ring, etc.

A video camera is something that "shouldn't be allowed". I really doubt every other team records signals like the Pats. That's what is such a big deal. Because everyone wasn't doing that. This may die down or it may get worse. Who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A video camera is something that "shouldn't be allowed". I really doubt every other team records signals like the Pats. That's what is such a big deal. Because everyone wasn't doing that. This may die down or it may get worse. Who knows?

I have no idea what other teams do. I'm fairly certain stealing signals is common and they may document the signals...this is the first and only team caught using a camera, which is why they were punished the way they were.

I'm just not seeing a reason for the government to get involved. The guy who supposedly has further proof of different filming is being mighty cryptic about it and hinted he was afraid to come forward because of an NDA.

The NFL offered to use their own legal resources in the event the Patriots attempt to take any action against him and are setting up a meeting. I mean, does that sound like a league interested in a cover up?

They are the number one sport in the country and they print money. They don't want to mess with the integrity of the sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the NFL (or some other governing body) protects all present and former members of the Pats video crew against possible repercussions for coming clean with what they know, then I'll believe that the NFL isn't covering things up. I don't think that this Matt Walsh person is the only one who knows what they did.

And will people please stop with the "it's ok, because everyone does it" baloney? People aren't arguing that stealing signals goes on -- that's a given. But the Pats took it to a new level, and it's a method that was outlawed by the NFL (probably because it can be a very effective way to do it), and Ron Jaworski has talked in the media about how one of his own former playoff teams (the Rams) got its only passing TD in a close playoff win because they picked off a signal. So obviously, it's possible that their illegally stealing signals got the Pats one -- and maybe all three -- of their SB wins. And this isn't a big deal?

I mean, in the grand scheme of things, this ranks way below Operation Iraqi Freedom and affordable healthcare, but hey, if we don't think this sport is on the up and up, we definitely have a right to complain about it. If you don't like what people are discussing on a message board, fine, don't click on that thread.

Ron Jaworski said that he doesn't think that stealing signs is a big deal, because it's just something that goes on. Yes, that's a legit viewpoint. Then abolish the rule, get the cameras and boom mikes out, put the radios inside the helmets, allow teams to pump in extra crowd noise through speakers, and let everyone do these things as much as they want. Otherwise, the NFL needs to dig deeper than they have. I'd like to think that it matters to the league whether its SB champions won fairly or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you're saying every team in the league is subject to the taping of their signals if they don't hide them, right?

In short, don't tape signals, but in the name of all that is holy, protect your own intellectual property.

I'm saying we don't know who/what the coaches are hiding the signals from. It could be they think the other team is trying to steal them (legal), or they think the other team is taping them (illegal), or it could be they are afraid the TV cameras are showing too much. Or it could be a combination of things. I remember an NFL network story about the coaches using the play sheet to cover their mouths. Basically, and I believe it was Reid they quoted, using the play sheet that way just helps eliminate interference (wind on the mic). In that case, hiding it from the opponent is just a bonus.

But the debate really is about taping signals. being able to steal them, in game, is one thing. Having tape to study is quite another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no idea what other teams do. I'm fairly certain stealing signals is common and they may document the signals...this is the first and only team caught using a camera, which is why they were punished the way they were.

I'm just not seeing a reason for the government to get involved. The guy who supposedly has further proof of different filming is being mighty cryptic about it and hinted he was afraid to come forward because of an NDA.

The NFL offered to use their own legal resources in the event the Patriots attempt to take any action against him and are setting up a meeting. I mean, does that sound like a league interested in a cover up?

They are the number one sport in the country and they print money. They don't want to mess with the integrity of the sport.

Congress got involved because of concerns by constituents. That's part of their job. And the NFL is now offering to cover Walsh's back, but is that because his name is only now out there? According to some reports, there was rumor of him/spygate II just after the video taping came to light. Why didn't the league investigate then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In that case, hiding it from the opponent is just a bonus.

But the debate really is about taping signals. being able to steal them, in game, is one thing. Having tape to study is quite another.

I never heard that, but if that were really the case, I wonder what kind of wind they must have down there for the defensive coaches to need 2 assistants holding up giant towels while they are sending their signals in :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Congress got involved because of concerns by constituents. That's part of their job. And the NFL is now offering to cover Walsh's back, but is that because his name is only now out there? According to some reports, there was rumor of him/spygate II just after the video taping came to light. Why didn't the league investigate then?

And why did he only come forward during Super Bowl week? And why hasn't a single reporter been able to track him down and talk to him during that time? This guy has been a ghost.

Specter is acting on behalf of Comcast...not his voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm saying we don't know who/what the coaches are hiding the signals from. It could be they think the other team is trying to steal them (legal), or they think the other team is taping them (illegal), or it could be they are afraid the TV cameras are showing too much. Or it could be a combination of things. I remember an NFL network story about the coaches using the play sheet to cover their mouths. Basically, and I believe it was Reid they quoted, using the play sheet that way just helps eliminate interference (wind on the mic). In that case, hiding it from the opponent is just a bonus.

But the debate really is about taping signals. being able to steal them, in game, is one thing. Having tape to study is quite another.

The bolded part has been my hang up on this issue since this whole thing started. It's why I've always said the whole issue is so over blown, and why I believe the practice of video taping signals is no more effective than using binoculars, which is legal.

Exactly when do you have time to "study" tape, if you in fact plan to use that info in the same game? The obvious reply would be halftime. However, halftime is only 12 minutes long. Players and coaches return to the field with 2-3 minutes left. That gives you a window of approximately 9-10 minutes to "study" an entire half of signals used. It's also not like they simply hold up X amount of fingers to signal in a play. There are various gestures, and hand motions and such, and the likelyhood of memorizing all those signals, AND syncing them up with the actual play run in a small window of time seems very unlikely. Even during a Super Bowl halfime, which is longer than reg season and playoff halftimes, it seems unlikely you have enough time to study and memorize that tape. At most, you could maybe pick up on very few. But by the same token, using binoculars (which again is legal) is likely only going to allow you to pick up very few. So how much of an advantage is this really going to give a team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See, this is a big part of the problem.

With all due respect, you don't have to be "comfortable" with anything. You aren't even a little bit involved. The NFL doesn't answer to the fans in regard to their policies on setting up evidence lockers in their office space.

This all just seems so crazy to me...I'm honestly shocked both by the level of tinfoil hat thinking going into this and the level of say the fans believe they should have in these matters.

It's a product...if you don't believe it's on the up and up, watch a different product.

How about this. Since I don't believe in their product you never spend another tax payer dime on this POS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never heard that, but if that were really the case, I wonder what kind of wind they must have down there for the defensive coaches to need 2 assistants holding up giant towels while they are sending their signals in :lol:

Nice job of taking part of the post out of context. Clearly, I was describing the Offensive playcaller covering his mouth, and offered a possible reason why, as offered by one of those playcallers.

And why did he only come forward during Super Bowl week? And why hasn't a single reporter been able to track him down and talk to him during that time? This guy has been a ghost.

Specter is acting on behalf of Comcast...not his voters.

Comcast, while not a voter as a business, is still a part of his constituency. Unless they have some special deal with Congress wherein Comcast pays no taxes, then Comcasts interests are Specter's as well, as a tax paying entity.

But, Walsh didn't come forward just for Super Bowl week. The story broke then. The reports are, that members of the media have known about Walsh since about the time of Spygate I. Obviously, if he was the one taping the walkthrough, he's no choirboy, and maybe he finally relented now for his own reasons. But, the fact is, the media knew about him in September. The real question is, why didn't the Commissioner? If the league was diligent in it's investigation, Goodell should have talked to Walsh then.

And, if you mean Specter, he too apparently wrote letters to Goodell as early as November. They just weren't answered. You need to reacquaint yourself with the timeline of this story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bolded part has been my hang up on this issue since this whole thing started. It's why I've always said the whole issue is so over blown, and why I believe the practice of video taping signals is no more effective than using binoculars, which is legal.

Exactly when do you have time to "study" tape, if you in fact plan to use that info in the same game? The obvious reply would be halftime. However, halftime is only 12 minutes long. Players and coaches return to the field with 2-3 minutes left. That gives you a window of approximately 9-10 minutes to "study" an entire half of signals used. It's also not like they simply hold up X amount of fingers to signal in a play. There are various gestures, and hand motions and such, and the likelyhood of memorizing all those signals, AND syncing them up with the actual play run in a small window of time seems very unlikely. Even during a Super Bowl halfime, which is longer than reg season and playoff halftimes, it seems unlikely you have enough time to study and memorize that tape. At most, you could maybe pick up on very few. But by the same token, using binoculars (which again is legal) is likely only going to allow you to pick up very few. So how much of an advantage is this really going to give a team?

How about this:

Team goes in at halftime, maybe the video guy even gets a head start, particularly if he is taping the D, and the Pats O is last on the field for the 1st half. Using halftime, and possibly even the third quarter, the staff has someone reviewing the digital recording (rewinding not much of a problem digitally) and gets the info out to the field for the 4th quarter (in real time, this would be close to an hour total). Even late in the 4th, there would be time to use any info gained for a game winning 4th quarter drive (Joe Buck reminded us often how good Brady was at this during the 4th quarter of the SB). Now, if this is the only video they have of their opponent, making the interpretation of signals would be tougher, but really, they may only need a couple. Like maybe a "tell" for a blitz. If however, they have other tapes, then they can use the new one to confirm various signals.

And yes, I have heard too that signals are changed every game, sometimes in a game. But I just don't see most of these players as being so sharp as to learn a new sign language every week, maybe twice a week. It stands to reason that at least some of the signals are the same. And again, only 1 or 2 could make the difference.

If there were no advantage to it, why would they have gone to the trouble? Did Belichick decide $500k was a bargain to pay for a season's worth of motivation? Unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Along the same line, I've heard differing opinions on how big a deal it could be that the Pats taped the walkthrough for the Rams. Jimmy Johnson said, "They can have my whole playbook! They won't stop me!" (hyperbole) though another analyst said, "Even a walkthrough shows you the formation that the team's using, even if all they do is walk or jog through it. If they're in the red zone and you see the formation, you've got a good handle on what play's coming, which is a huge deal for the defense."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about this:

Team goes in at halftime, maybe the video guy even gets a head start, particularly if he is taping the D, and the Pats O is last on the field for the 1st half. Using halftime, and possibly even the third quarter, the staff has someone reviewing the digital recording (rewinding not much of a problem digitally) and gets the info out to the field for the 4th quarter (in real time, this would be close to an hour total). Even late in the 4th, there would be time to use any info gained for a game winning 4th quarter drive (Joe Buck reminded us often how good Brady was at this during the 4th quarter of the SB). Now, if this is the only video they have of their opponent, making the interpretation of signals would be tougher, but really, they may only need a couple. Like maybe a "tell" for a blitz. If however, they have other tapes, then they can use the new one to confirm various signals.

And yes, I have heard too that signals are changed every game, sometimes in a game. But I just don't see most of these players as being so sharp as to learn a new sign language every week, maybe twice a week. It stands to reason that at least some of the signals are the same. And again, only 1 or 2 could make the difference.

If there were no advantage to it, why would they have gone to the trouble? Did Belichick decide $500k was a bargain to pay for a season's worth of motivation? Unlikely.

Your scenerio ties into my last point. You'd at best, get very few signals, which is no more than you'd get from using binoculars.

As for Belichick, it's highly unlikely he knew what exactly the fine would be, just like he likely didn't think he'd get caught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your scenerio ties into my last point. You'd at best, get very few signals, which is no more than you'd get from using binoculars.

As for Belichick, it's highly unlikely he knew what exactly the fine would be, just like he likely didn't think he'd get caught.

I think the tape would give more than just spying with binocs. You can study the tape, but with just the eye, you're relying on memory, even with notes. Plus, you can study a tape in privacy, where there are no distractions.

Of course BB didn't think he'd get caught. But if there was no real value to using the tape, why even take the chance? Especially after the Commissioner sent out a memo the season before about it being a no-no?

So, if using binoculars is as effective, and is legal, wouldn't that have been the smart way to go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the tape would give more than just spying with binocs. You can study the tape, but with just the eye, you're relying on memory, even with notes. Plus, you can study a tape in privacy, where there are no distractions.

Of course BB didn't think he'd get caught. But if there was no real value to using the tape, why even take the chance? Especially after the Commissioner sent out a memo the season before about it being a no-no?

So, if using binoculars is as effective, and is legal, wouldn't that have been the smart way to go?

Like it has been said. Leave no stone unturned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like it has been said. Leave no stone unturned.

That's pretty weak. Break the rules for a practice that has no obvious merit. Good plan. Belichick had to know there would be some form of punishment for getting caught. Goodell has been hard on players that get in trouble, and it was Goodell that sent the memo reminding teams that taping other teams signals was illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's pretty weak. Break the rules for a practice that has no obvious merit. Good plan. Belichick had to know there would be some form of punishment for getting caught. Goodell has been hard on players that get in trouble, and it was Goodell that sent the memo reminding teams that taping other teams signals was illegal.

It's also well known that taking banned substances is illegal, yet players still do it. No one thinks they'll get caught. Happens in life all the time.

Since the memo was sent, Belichick should have been fined, and he was. The maximum, which was never done. They also lost a first round pick, which was also never done before.

I go back to my post that started this brief exchange. I don't believe the time frame was sufficient enough to make as significant an impact as most believe it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's also well known that taking banned substances is illegal, yet players still do it. No one thinks they'll get caught. Happens in life all the time

The difference being, that using an illegal substance has at least some benefit. Whether it's recreational drugs providing a high, or steroids providing a boost in performance, the players choose to use the drugs because they see benefit in it.

Since the memo was sent, Belichick should have been fined, and he was. The maximum, which was never done. They also lost a first round pick, which was also never done before.

I believe someone posted a link in a different thread showing the Dolphins losing a 1st rounder in '70 or '71. As for the fine, it's all relative. The Cowboys QB coach got hit with a $100k fine (or a suspension that equalled 100k) for using steroids, even though his use of steroids had no effect on the game whatsoever. Now, I don't know for a fact what their respective salaries are, but I'm pretty sure Belichick makes more than 5x what the 'Boys QB coach (name?) makes.

I go back to my post that started this brief exchange. I don't believe the time frame was sufficient enough to make as significant an impact as most believe it did.

Here we'll just have to disagree, especially if you don't think they could get anything from studying tape for up to an hour. But again if there is no benefit, only a downside, there's no point in doing it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The difference being, that using an illegal substance has at least some benefit. Whether it's recreational drugs providing a high, or steroids providing a boost in performance, the players choose to use the drugs because they see benefit in it.

I believe someone posted a link in a different thread showing the Dolphins losing a 1st rounder in '70 or '71. As for the fine, it's all relative. The Cowboys QB coach got hit with a $100k fine (or a suspension that equalled 100k) for using steroids, even though his use of steroids had no effect on the game whatsoever. Now, I don't know for a fact what their respective salaries are, but I'm pretty sure Belichick makes more than 5x what the 'Boys QB coach (name?) makes.

Here we'll just have to disagree, especially if you don't think they could get anything from studying tape for up to an hour. But again if there is no benefit, only a downside, there's no point in doing it at all.

To tie in your 1st and 3rd points. I never claimed there is no benefit, I just don't think it's as advantageous as most believe. Some with connections to the league agree with me, and some don't, but like you said, you and I will just have to agree to disagree.

Wade Wilson is Dallas' QB coach. He was suspended for 5 games, which may have totaled $100,000 in total lost money (give or take a buck or two). Personally, I don't think he should have been suspended, unless it was revealed he also provided for players. Give the guy a break. He was just trying to get a woody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hm... now that Walsh's tapes were from several games that the Pats lost, it is confirmed that no walk-thru was filmed and that any government intervention would be really bad for the league...what do people think now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hm... now that Walsh's tapes were from several games that the Pats lost, it is confirmed that no walk-thru was filmed and that any government intervention would be really bad for the league...what do people think now?

The more this has played out, the more my original belief in this whole deal has just gotten stronger. Especially with Walsh comfirming he doesn't have a tape of the walkthrough, and was never asked to tape it. He also confirmed what Belichick said in the beginning which was the tapes were not used in the same game. This blows a major hole in the idea that we were cheated out of our SB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hm... now that Walsh's tapes were from several games that the Pats lost, it is confirmed that no walk-thru was filmed and that any government intervention would be really bad for the league...what do people think now?

I just think that fans will go on respectfully (and other times, less than respectfully) disagreeing on the subject. The fans who think that the Pats are a dynasty, will go on believing it...and the same for the fans who believe that their dynasty's a fake. That genie's out of the bottle, and I don't think it'll go back in. This all would have just been so much easier if the NFL just didn't have the rule against spying with videotape...me personally, I think that Belichick sounds like one of the baseball steroid users, trying to dodge questions and think up lies. The Pats kept doing it because it worked...not because it didn't. I hope that XXXIX isn't a tainted game, but we'll never know. I know some Steeler fans who think that they were cheated out of a SB title that year, not us.

Government intervention wouldn't be bad for the league at all though. Football will still be the #1 sport in the country, and will make lots of money, that's a non-issue. Congress regulates things that are way more trivial than football, and more good than bad came out of Congress' hearings on baseball...even though we all know that steroid use in baseball will continue long after the Mitchell hearings. I wouldn't mind the same scrutiny on football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites