DaBruinz

Very interesting. He was actually hired by the team BEFORE Bill Belichick came on board and was taping games then.

Also, I find his telling about the No Huddle offense to be funny because its clearly there to throw people off and to make him look like he knows what he is doing in terms of coaching..

BadMoFo

So him saying that it worked 75 percent of the time is hearsay from what he heard from someone.

Also, the stuff about the walkthrough is pathetic.

So I guess the next guys that the media will go after are Ernie Adams, Jimmy Dee, Charlie Weis, Brian Daboll and "the quarterback."

What I don't get is why the Times didn't ask him anything about why he got fired? If he is still upset at the Patriots for firing him?

BrianPat

Or about Spectors comment that the Jets were doing it, they brought it up, but didn't name the team ?? Oh, not biased LOL

BradyManny

Bledsoe and Brady are both on record saying they've never had any information about what the defense was about to be run fed to them. So whatever information Weiss gathered from Adams would be incorporated into the playcall and not given to the quarterback. Which makes sense, you don't want to give the QB more information than they need and only want them worrying about what they're executing.

But what's hugely ignored in this whole thing about the "75% of the plays" is that Brady knows what the defense is running 75% of the time anyway based on their film work and ability to study a D. I guess that's the most frustrating thing about this whole thing, all the shyt that BB has had to go through, at the end of the day, they didn't even really need this, yet they're getting killed for it.

BelichickFan

He wasn't taping coaching signals back then, though, unless I misread; regardless, everything he said was benign to me a covered in what we knew back in September.

BradyManny

That's what I gathered as well.

Interesting Zolak comment yesterday was that his main job as a backup was to try and steal defensive signals. I honestly think the average Patriot hater has no clue that stealing signals is a part of the game and an accepted one, and don't realize that a) it was the taping that we were penalized for, not for having stolen signals b) up until 2006, BB's explanation of using the tapes for another game is rather legit.

BelichickFan

That's exactly the point. The tapes were used to steal signals. The end result is no different than having someone write it down; why video ? it expedites the process and likely makes it more error free. But there's no indication they were used in the same game and the only thing they were used for was to steal signs which, we all know, is legal.

A bunch of stuff about very little.

BradyManny

Honestly, I think the best idea I heard is just to make taping signals legal. If everything's fair game, teams would have to change them up week to week anyway. It's all moot now because of the headsets.

To me, stealing signals is basically like counting cards. I can't understand how it could be considered cheating. So, we used technology to help count cards. Big deal. After 2006, it was a clear violation of the rules, and thats the only thing we can really fault BB for.

RussFrancis

the more he opens his mouth, the more he sounds like an asst. golf pro.

Palm Beach Pats Fan

one comment showed you how important the signal taping wasn't:

It was the kind of situation that being the third video guy, there wasn’t anything else I necessarily needed to shoot, especially for home games. So it was said, “Go ahead and shoot the signals.”


something like this, I'd guess:
OK, there...Matt, that's your name, right? Get me some coffee, please... and you say you have nothing better to do, huh? Well, shoot the coaches signals, I guess. Or pick your nose... whatever.