Do you wish the Patriots challenged Goodell (like the Saints are doing)?

[MoLewisrocks]

The Pats handled it right with the Commissioner's office.

No matter who else might or might not have done the same or similar thing and where and how often they might or might not have done it without being punished, the Pats were caught red-handed violating a pretty clearly drawn league memo, while offering a "the dog ate my homework" excuse built around a fictional and far-fetched "misunderstanding" of when the tapes were to be used or not used.

Even had they fought it publicly, the Commissioner had the majority of the media, teams and fans calling for far worse penalties, including the suspension of Coach Belichick for a season.

Most people outside of Patriot Nation still feel that the "fix was in" and that Goodell destroyed evidence of even worse behavior by the Patriots; that, of course, doesn't make it true, but it was part of the equation at the time.

And, as someone pointed out above, Goodell had a clear agenda to strengthen discipline in the league and, unfortunately, this played right into his hands. As a result, it's fair to say that both the Spygate and the Bountygate decisions were as much political decisions as they were decisions on the merits.

Finally, we don't know what happened between Mr. Kraft and the NFL Office behind the scenes. The Patriots organization is one of the most powerful and influential in the league, so I think we can assume that they pushed it as far as they could without undermining Goodell's broader agenda.

The question of whether the Pats should have defended themselves more vigorously in the court of public opinion when the HSPN lies were flying on a daily basis is a separate issue, so this comment applies only to the Pats' relationship with the League office.

Robert does care about the court of public opinion substantially more than Bill does. That said, not enough to cut his nose off to spite his face. When spygate resurfaced purely as a media driven vendetta, and he knew there was no substance to the allegations and the league was only investigating them because of media pressure, he did defend himself vigorously and was vindicated publicly (although to what end since as others have mentioned many in the media to this day persist in misrepresenting that, too).

 

[Joker]

The Pats handled it right with the Commissioner's office.

No matter who else might or might not have done the same or similar thing and where and how often they might or might not have done it without being punished, the Pats were caught red-handed violating a pretty clearly drawn league memo,total unadulterated B.S. while offering a "the dog ate my homework" excuse built around a fictional and far-fetched "misunderstanding" of when the tapes were to be used or not used.ridiculous, extreme hyperbole

It DOES matter that teams were caught filming and asked to remove their cameras, just as the Jets were PRIOR to the Spygate incident...this back in 2006.The key is BB did not report this to the league as Mangini did subsequently, an action Mangini regrets on record and one he NEVER meant to balloon into what it did.

The memo sent out was anything BUT clear and different interpretations were handed out by the NFL itself for chrissakes....why are you making things up that are not true?

The rule in question has been misstated ad nauseum by the mainstream media since the controversy first erupted. Taping opposing coaches and signals from sidelines is not barred by the NFL rulebook or league bylaws, and the whole controversy about "stealing signals" is stupid to begin with because signals are being flashed in the open - there is nothing sacrosanct about them; what is barred is in-game use of such tape, which is not practical to start with as turnaround time needed to break down recently shot footage is to great to make any use of it; claims to the contrary by former player Mark Schlereth are laughably inaccurate.

Stockholm syndrome...check it out...you have a pretty severe case.

 

[PatriotDynasty_12]

It would have distracted the team for preparing week to week if they did that. (I'm aware, it still was a major distraction, regardless) You know BB's philosophy is always focusing on the next opponent and not talking about anything else. One day, when BB is retired and their doing an interview on the GOAT of coaching in the NFL, I'm sure we'll hear from him what really happened and what was on those tapes.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Robert does care about the court of public opinion substantially more than Bill does. That said, not enough to cut his nose off to spite his face. When spygate resurfaced purely as a media driven vendetta, and he knew there was no substance to the allegations and the league was only investigating them because of media pressure, he did defend himself vigorously and was vindicated publicly (although to what end since as others have mentioned many in the media to this day persist in misrepresenting that, too).

We don't disagree. My argument at the time was that the Pats could and should have been more aggressive countering the untruths from ESPN and others because of their long-term impact on the brand. Those who pay close attention recognize indeed what you do.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

It DOES matter that teams were caught filming and asked to remove their cameras, just as the Jets were PRIOR to the Spygate incident...this back in 2006.The key is BB did not report this to the league as Mangini did subsequently, an action Mangini regrets on record and one he NEVER meant to balloon into what it did.

The memo sent out was anything BUT clear and different interpretations were handed out by the NFL itself for chrissakes....why are you making things up that are not true?

The rule in question has been misstated ad nauseum by the mainstream media since the controversy first erupted. Taping opposing coaches and signals from sidelines is not barred by the NFL rulebook or league bylaws, and the whole controversy about "stealing signals" is stupid to begin with because signals are being flashed in the open - there is nothing sacrosanct about them; what is barred is in-game use of such tape, which is not practical to start with as turnaround time needed to break down recently shot footage is to great to make any use of it; claims to the contrary by former player Mark Schlereth are laughably inaccurate.

Stockholm syndrome...check it out...you have a pretty severe case.

There's way too much water over the bridge and under the dam on this one to re-open that debate other than to say that it might be that I live outside New England, but it ain't Stockholm syndrome; I have no empathy at all with those who lied about the Pats and, for one, haven't spent a dime on the Horrald or clicked on the ESPN webpage since.

On everything else, we'll just have to disagree.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yes, and for the same reasons that I stated at the time. It's a bit too late to be worrying about it now, though.

 

[patman52]

The pats handled it right, the NFL office didn't. If BB acted as a coach and not a lawyer it never would have happened.

 

[Tunescribe]

Should they have challenged this megalomaniac? Called into question his evidence (the destroying of) and motives? They let a fool define their dynasty, their glory years as being earned through "cheating".

Goodell defined NOTHING about the Patriots' dynasty/glory years. Anyone with half a brain who knows anything about pro football realizes that.

As for challenging Roger's punishment: that's a tough call. The "cameragate" nonsense all came down during the season and a challenge would've only lengthened the distraction and allowed it to get bigger via asshats like Tomase. But fining BB $500k and losing a first-round pick over it was insane, especially looking back on it five years later. This involved team administration, not players, so any move to challenge would've been Kraft's call. I don't know of Kraft has ever addressed considering that possibility.

The Saints situation is much, much different. I don't see where Goodell has overstepped himself in that case, if that's why you suggest. What the Saints did was pretty egregious.

 

[flasox27]

Absolutely
The commissioner should have punished the Patriots on the same level as the 49*ers and Bronco's for violating league rules I would have no objection. However in his zeal to establish his authority and play up to the NYC media he managed to blow the incident all out of proportion and then destroy any means of exonerating the Pats reputation which has been tarnished by him to this day. As a matter of fact, I am still waiting for that POS to reveal who leaked the films to FOX as he promised. The fact that the former employee of the Jets repeatedly shows his bias in giving them wrist slaps such as in tampering cases and the tripping incident proves my point. Imagine what would have happened to Belichick if one of his coaches tripped an opposing player.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Absolutely
The commissioner should have punished the Patriots on the same level as the 49*ers and Bronco's for violating league rules I would have no objection. However in his zeal to establish his authority and play up to the NYC media he managed to blow the incident all out of proportion and then destroy any means of exonerating the Pats reputation which has been tarnished by him to this day. As a matter of fact, I am still waiting for that POS to reveal who leaked the films to FOX as he promised. The fact that the former employee of the Jets repeatedly shows his bias in giving them wrist slaps such as in tampering cases and the tripping incident proves my point. Imagine what would have happened to Belichick if one of his coaches tripped an opposing player.

This is how I feel too. The Pats disobeyed a memo, as someone else mentioned, BB was trying to play lawyer with his interpretation of that memo. BB probably didn't take the that memo seriously anyway and why should he have - Pats catch Jets filming and the Jets simply deny it - end of story. Dolphins using taped audio and "that's football".

Goodell, buffoon that he is, made it out to be a much bigger deal than it was, made people question the legitimacy of the Pats SB wins and dynasty, hurt the reputation of the leagues most successful team of the last decade + and invited all the idiots to scream cheaters every time the Patriots are mentioned even years later.

Everything before and since has met with a collective yawn and a slap on the wrist from the league office. The possible exception being this Saints case. However even in the Saints case there was no rush to judgement, no immediate over the top punishment. No destroying of evidence. And the Saints are at least fighting back a little.

 

[Mountain_Commando]

Mr. Kraft would have never challenged the ruling. All parties concerned (including Mr. Kraft, BB, and RG) wanted the issue to die down asap, because it had great potential to hurt the NFL brand.

The average fan hears "taping signals" and immediately deduces "cheating", with no regards to the facts that you can still tape signals from 10 yards further back, or that taping signals has always been a ubiquitous practice. If Goodell had released the tapes, the average fan would have seen that many other if not all teams are doing the same thing. The media would have had a field day with this, frothing at the mouth and spinning this into a 'league wide racket'. Think of the backlash from the average fan, who would start believing the league is "rigged", and tanking viewership.

I believe that once Ratgini 'broke the unspoken code' so to speak and ratted out the Pats, he opened Pandora's box because the media got hold of the story and flew with it. Goodell then had no choice but to come down harsh on the Pats making it seem that this was a grave sin, and that the Pats were the only ones doing it, thereby painting the Pats as the lone villains and protecting the rest of the league and the NFL brand. Pats basically took the hit for all 32 teams.

Mr. Kraft himself being one of the largest stakeholders of the NFL had no choice but to go along with it. Goodell did what he had to do to protect the brand. If anyone is to be blamed, it is BB for willfully ignoring Godell's memo, and the fool Mangini, who ignited this whole poopstorm due to his ego and his petty vendetta.

 

[Tobias Reiper]

Hello, Saints fan here. Saw this thread linked on a Saints forum and decided to join in the fray.

To answer the topic's question:
I didn't think the Patriots should have challenged Goddell then, and I still think that way. Why? If I remember correctly, the Patriots (or was it Belichick who was fined, but Mr Kraft/the team paid for it?) were fined $250,000 and a #1 pick taken away of the 2 #1's they had that year. In NFL terms, $250,000 is nothing, and taking a #1 pick from an already elite team, when they have 2 #1's, well, not what you'd consider "harsh" punishment. Pay the money, kiss the pick good bye, move on. Case closed.

Matter of fact, the impression I think most fans had was that the Patriots were given preferential treatment and got away with a slap on the wrist.

As for the "taint", the bad reputation, the "cheaters" label, that's all ridiculous. True fans of football know that no matter how much tape you have, how many signals you have "intercepted", you still have to go on the field and make the plays. Everyone knew the Lombardi Packers were going to run the sweep every other play. No one could stop it. Just like everyone knew Brady was going to toss it up deep for Moss, but couldn't stop it either.

The Saints case in a whole lot different, though. This whole "bountygate" mess has many ramifications outside the football field. One is, obviously, the ex-player lawsuits; but the other aspect which you don't really hear anything about, is the US Gov't. Congress has been all over the NFL for a while regarding player safety because of the ex-players allegations. I think it was 2007 or 2008 when Goddell had to go in front of a Congressional hearing regarding player's health after so many allegations by ex-players surfaced. I think a lot of the NFL's "show of force" has to do more with a horse and pony show for Congress than any actual care they could have for player safety. Why the show? Fear of anything coming between the NFL and their Antitrust Exemption.

Unlike "spygate", which was swiftly dealt with and put away by all parties involved, Goddell has dragged "bountygate" all over the place for months, playing the concerned commissioner in the media, throwing the word "bounty" around and referring to all of this "evidence" and how clear it is, but no one has actually seen the "clear evidence": we've seen a whole lot of what the NFL calls "transcribed evidence", sure, but not the real deal.

And unlike "spygate", the Saints lost their HC for at least a season (do you know, Payton still has to apply for re-instatement, that's why he's not saying anything and for all means and purposes has gone into hiding), an Assistant Coach (Joe Vitt) for 6 games,their GM for half the season, and just aboout ended Jonathan Vilma's career, over allegations by disgruntled employees and semantics. I don't know how much you have followed this mess, but the NFL has gone from "pay-to-injure" all the way down to "plays in which legal hits caused injury to a player" as quoted here

And just so it is clear: yes, the Saints did run an "office pool", in which players got money for making plays, but also, one in which players who blew plays had to put money in. And yes, the dollar amounts were usually around $1,000, which, for an NFL player, is nothing more than you putting $5 or $10 on the office pool, and you bragging about it when you win it.

Sorry for the wall of text

 

[Joker]

Welcome to the board and thanks for the outside perspective. This bountygate tempest has divided fanbases all over the country. It boils down to Goodell the Benign Dictator versus Goodell the fumbling incompetent czar. I ascribe to the latter and definitely want to see this played out in court but you'll run into stiff resistance here from the other side of the coin.

As for your "wall of text"...don't sweat it...wait til you see the walls of responses.

 

[brdmaverick]

Yep the Pats got nailed for breaking the letter of the rule rather than the intent. The innocuous nature of what they were doing was so out of line with the punishment it caused people to invent shenanigans that never happened.

I hope I'm not triggering a digression, but you can't always have it the way you want....

The tuck rule that clearly went in our favor was definitely called based on the letter of the law and not the intent.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Matter of fact, the impression I think most fans had was that the Patriots were given preferential treatment and got away with a slap on the wrist.

And that's exactly why I think the Pats should have spoken up in some form. Goodell makes a mountain out of a molehill and everyone thinks he's doing the Pats a favor, letting them off easy and for what? For the mortal sin of having a camera in the wrong location.

 

[flasox27]

I hope I'm not triggering a digression, but you can't always have it the way you want....

The tuck rule that clearly went in our favor was definitely called based on the letter of the law and not the intent.

I think you are comparing apples to oranges.The Pats were unfairly penalized for a rule violation governing team conduct like the Broncos and 49*ers. The tuck rule enforcement is a game rule that legitimately in the Pats favor. Longtime Pats fan can remember Ben Dreith calling a questionable penalty for the benefit of the Raiders in 1976 which cost the Pats a superbowl.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I hope I'm not triggering a digression, but you can't always have it the way you want....

The tuck rule that clearly went in our favor was definitely called based on the letter of the law and not the intent.

Learn the game.

The Tuck Rule was called numerous times that season. In one example, it enabled the Jets to defeat the Patriots in game 2 after Testaverde "fumbled" and the Pats recovered only to have the rule invoked.

One more time really slowly...the Tuck Rule was created to avoid individuals subjectively interpreting intent. Note also that the league has kept the rule after the occasion you completely misinterpret.

Understand the context of the game before opining.

 

[Tobias Reiper]

And that's exactly why I think the Pats should have spoken up in some form. Goodell makes a mountain out of a molehill and everyone thinks he's doing the Pats a favor, letting them off easy and for what? For the mortal sin of having a camera in the wrong location.

I do understand what you are saying, but at the same time, I can see where given the circumstances, the Pats FO saying "we can live with that... let's move on".

Believe me, had the Saints been fined $250,000 and ducked a draft pick, this would be all over and done by now, but Goddell decided not only to punish and punish harshly, but to smear doo-doo all over the image of the Saints, and make a holier than thou display of power for everyone to see.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I do wish that the Pats had made a PR push, either during or immediately following the 2007 season, to inform the football-watching public of exactly what rule was broken in Spygate. Specifically, that they filmed from the wrong location, and that filming the exact same footage from a few yards away would have been perfectly fine.

On the other hand, I think that Belichick honestly doesn't care what a bunch of jealous idiots and media hacks think.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Learn the game.

The Tuck Rule was called numerous times that season. In one example, it enabled the Jets to defeat the Patriots in game 2 after Testaverde "fumbled" and the Pats recovered only to have the rule invoked.

One more time really slowly...the Tuck Rule was created to avoid individuals subjectively interpreting intent. Note also that the league has kept the rule after the occasion you completely misinterpret.

Understand the context of the game before opining.

Bingo. Whether you like or dislike the rule, it was called correctly and it was put in place for situations precisely like that one. It did what it was meant to do.