Spygate - The Unasked Questions

[RayClay]

Thanks for responding. I really want to hear from people who disagree with my take.

I agree that they were in violation of the league's rule. The rule clearly states that no video camera's are allowed.

But beyond that infraction, can you reply to the specific points and questions that I addressed?

There is nothing beyond that. The rule is there for a reason, they violated the rule. That's it.

 

[ljuneau]

In a nutshell, "they wouldn't have been able to "advance scout" in this manner had they not violated the rules."

Your conclusion is invalid and throws your entire argument out the window. Based upon your statement above, the only way to "advance scout" is via violating the rule stipulating that video equipment is not allowed on the field. Quite a silly assumption.

If the camera was a source for communication to Tom Brady during the game, then, yes, I would agree that would be cheating. If used for post game analysis and film study, that would not constitute "cheating". Every NFL team studies films of their opponents.

The reason BB and the Pats were fined was for having video equipment on the field, not for how they used that equipment.

 

[JoeSixPat]

mediots who keep using the word 'stealing' and 'cheating' should be charged with slander and libel.

Now now - they're just trying to gain a competetive advantage over the competitionin the media... so what if they break a few rules in doing so?

 

[allworldrussfrancis]

In theory you are correct, but Belicheat sounds so much better than Belimisinterpretedtherule.

Which is why this has become such a big deal for the media.

 

[Metaphors]

What you are trying to argue is semantics.
A rule was broken. Breaking rules is 'cheating'. It could also be called 'gamesmanship'.
The difference has absolutely nothing to do with intent, use or the extent of the violation. It has to do with whether the person using the word has a positive or negative opinion toward the person.

Arguing the details would be irrelevant, anyone who prefers to call it cheating will.

Exactly right and precisely why the Pats aren't making the arguments being made in these posts. You can't win and could possibly make the situation worse (which is why Peter King is a moron for demanding the Belichick talk about this to the media).

I put my $0.02 worth on this in this thread.

People assume that Belichick was either evil or an idiot, but nothing in his background suggests that either is the case. He was faced with a rule that he believed was patently unfair and targeted specifically at him. If you wanted to steal signs and it was more effective to have a person with binoculars "spy" the signs and other people record the information (immediately usable and no tape to break down), why wasn't that practice banned? Because that isn't what Belichick was doing.

Belichick railed against an injustice and an unfair authority and was unafraid of having this issue confronted by the league office. What he failed to anticipate was the leaky nature of the commissioner's office and the sensationalization of the issue by the media. If you want to crucify Belichick for anything, that failure and the resulting stigma on the organization is a good place to start.

 

[JJDChE]

There is nothing beyond that. The rule is there for a reason, they violated the rule. That's it.

Any rational person would agree with your sentiment, but that's totally beside the point here. PYPER is attempting to fight the battle of public opinion, and I laud him for that.

The fact is there an overwhelming amount of negative media on this subject and virtually all of it is based on one slanted perception of what happened regarding this incident. If they media was simply saying "The rule is there for a reason, they violated the rule. That's it." But they are questioning the integrity and accomplishments of the coaches, team and players based on their own personal moral judgements and speculations on the situation. Unfortunately no one (or virtually no one) has presented the view which PYPER is trying to put forth. And, frankly, IMO it's far more rational than what is being regularly portrayed by the media.

 

[borg]

.........."What if Belichick only used the footage to assist him in developing what is probably best described as "personality profiles" of every coach in the league? What if matching the film of the adjustments up with the game film, Belichick then used the footage as a sort of "key" to unlock the specific tendencies of each coach and/or coordinator in the league? In essence Belichick would be attempting to gain an understanding of how each coach thinks? How might they react to each particular situation that occurs during the game? For example...When the defense has their base defense on the field, what adjustments do they make when the offense goes empty backfield or brings in three tight ends.".............

Sorry Pyper but you are just grasping for excuses. Focusing the camera on the signs used tells you nothing about the tendencies in specific situations...only about signs used in specific situations. How teams deploy their players during different looks will be shown on the game tapes. And you "personality profile" arguement is just a fluffy phrase that attempts to justify this rules infraction.

 

[PromisedLand]

They violated a rule in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage. That's cheating.

I'm sorry. I love the Pats and will continue to support them to the death, but come on.

Unless you are arguing that a) they didn't violate a rule; or b) they didn't gain (or attempt to gain) a competitive advantage, you can pretty much throw your manifesto in the garbage.

I agree with this analysis. I also feel that BB most likely knowingly violated this rule. The real tragedy for BB, the Patriots and their fans is not that they cheated, but they exposed themselves to the predictable accusations that they cheated their way to their successes over the past 6 seasons. BB should have been smart enough to foresee this.

In the final analysis, I believe that the videotaping was not done to gain a competitive advantage in the current game, as both BB asserts and Goodell acknowledges. I believe it was done to provide a resource to be used in preparation for future games against the same opponent. I further believe that any competitive advantage so gained would be small, especially when considering that the same information could be legally obtained in other ways (for example, legal videotaping from an enclosed, covered place in the stadium). That's why I cannot understand why BB would take such a needless risk.

Unless BB provides a satisfactory explanation for his decision (or "misinterpretation"), his legacy and that of his teams will now forever be subject to question, no matter how misinformed or unfair his critics may be. And that is needless and sad, because he and his teams have accomplished so much.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

I posted this a couple days ago:

It really irks me that the media and the NFL have been operating under the following $#@!#% assumptions:

#1 Defensive coordinators in the NFL have the IQs of road kill.
Per almost every NFL coach interviewed (past and present), signal stealing has been going on for all time. So, if I am a defensive coordinator, I am going to make sure my signals are consistent quarter to quarter, game to game, and season to season, because knowing someone is probably stealing my signals, I am just not intelligent enough to help myself.

#2 The Number of Defensive Schemes/Plays Available to a Defensive Coordinator are limited to a handful, thus patterns are easily discernable.
There can be hundreds of defensive plays that can be tweaked within dozens of defensive schemes. Hundreds. Upon hundreds.

#3 The information gleaned in 30 minutes can shed light on the remaining 30 minutes of gameplay.
Exactly how many defensive plays available to a defensive coordinator are used during a half? 10%? 15% Less? The Patriots offense had 4 possessions (roughly 34 plays) in the 1st half of the Jets game. What are the odds we will see the same defensive play call in the second half? Same formation yes, but will it be the same personnel package? Same alignment? Same assignments? A Blitz? Zone? Man? A little of both? Cover 1? Cover 2? Cover 3? Cover 4?

BB was compiling information over a coordinator's career to look for patterns. You don't find patterns in 34 plays. You need to analyze hundreds of scenarios/defensive play calls. 30 minutes of football to find a pattern? Come on. Not to mention that based on the every present "signal stealling fear" (see coaches covering mouths with play sheets, towel holders for visual blockage, etc), signals are probably changed at halftime anyways. Maybe. See assumption #1.

#4 BB was being blatantly arrogant about violating the rule.
The man was caught last year doing the exact same thing and the film wasn't even confiscated! No one said boo! Guess what...I'm BB, and I'm thinking that other than an annoyance for opposing team security, I'm OK because the NFL didn't do so much as slap me on the wrist. No fines, no suspensions, nothing.

Bottom line is BB was not "cheating" the way the media has led everyone to believe. Was he using video instead of a polaroid camera to capture the signals? Yes. Was he using the video taped signals captured in game for an in game advantage? NO. See BB statement: "We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress." Did he use this information when a game was over and BB's crew could properly compile the information for an advantage? Hell YES! Big difference.

His crime was using a video camera instead of a polaroid camera. He could have taken time stamped pictures and matched them up post game with game footage to gather the same information (signal = defensive call) and he would have been within the letter of the rule. The NFL should have minimally fined him and the team and been done with it. Put the radios in the helmets, and call it a day.

They couldn't do that!!!! It makes too much sense!!!!!!

Not to mention, too easy!!!!!!!

 

[KoolAidDrinker]

I posted this a couple days ago:

It really irks me that the media and the NFL have been operating under the following $#@!#% assumptions:

#1 Defensive coordinators in the NFL have the IQs of road kill.
Per almost every NFL coach interviewed (past and present), signal stealing has been going on for all time. So, if I am a defensive coordinator, I am going to make sure my signals are consistent quarter to quarter, game to game, and season to season, because knowing someone is probably stealing my signals, I am just not intelligent enough to help myself.

#2 The Number of Defensive Schemes/Plays Available to a Defensive Coordinator are limited to a handful, thus patterns are easily discernable.
There can be hundreds of defensive plays that can be tweaked within dozens of defensive schemes. Hundreds. Upon hundreds.

#3 The information gleaned in 30 minutes can shed light on the remaining 30 minutes of gameplay.
Exactly how many defensive plays available to a defensive coordinator are used during a half? 10%? 15% Less? The Patriots offense had 4 possessions (roughly 34 plays) in the 1st half of the Jets game. What are the odds we will see the same defensive play call in the second half? Same formation yes, but will it be the same personnel package? Same alignment? Same assignments? A Blitz? Zone? Man? A little of both? Cover 1? Cover 2? Cover 3? Cover 4?

BB was compiling information over a coordinator's career to look for patterns. You don't find patterns in 34 plays. You need to analyze hundreds of scenarios/defensive play calls. 30 minutes of football to find a pattern? Come on. Not to mention that based on the every present "signal stealling fear" (see coaches covering mouths with play sheets, towel holders for visual blockage, etc), signals are probably changed at halftime anyways. Maybe. See assumption #1.

#4 BB was being blatantly arrogant about violating the rule.
The man was caught last year doing the exact same thing and the film wasn't even confiscated! No one said boo! Guess what...I'm BB, and I'm thinking that other than an annoyance for opposing team security, I'm OK because the NFL didn't do so much as slap me on the wrist. No fines, no suspensions, nothing.

Bottom line is BB was not "cheating" the way the media has led everyone to believe. Was he using video instead of a polaroid camera to capture the signals? Yes. Was he using the video taped signals captured in game for an in game advantage? NO. See BB statement: "We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress." Did he use this information when a game was over and BB's crew could properly compile the information for an advantage? Hell YES! Big difference.

His crime was using a video camera instead of a polaroid camera. He could have taken time stamped pictures and matched them up post game with game footage to gather the same information (signal = defensive call) and he would have been within the letter of the rule. The NFL should have minimally fined him and the team and been done with it. Put the radios in the helmets, and call it a day.

Sorry I missed this post earlier. I COULDN'T AGREE MORE, Iron Helmet! Your analysis is succinct, based on the actual rule that was violated (the one in the bylaws/constitution), and plausable, given what we know about the NFL and BB. Though I think the punishment harsh, the new sheriff probably did the best he could given the media frenzy. The NFL image is the primary issue here. Hopefully this story will fade and good exciting football will take center stage again!

You should send your post to the major media outlets. Who knows, maybe somebody will report the story for what it really is: a tidal wave in a teapot.

 

[Metaphors]

Sorry Charlie. Besides the signs themselves, there is a wealth of information to be found that the network broadcasts and coaches tapes can't provide:

1) How long does it take them to get defensive signs in? I can adjust the pace of the offense to the line of scrimmage to take advantage of that.

2) Do they change signs frequently after they see the offensive formation? Might want to quick shift the formation before the snap.

That is just the obvious stuff. I'm sure there is a whole lot more there for someone who is willing to look for it.

 

[ClevTrev]

My gues, PYPER, is that you'll get a response that indicates that a rule was broken. Nothing else is relevant to these journalists.

BTW, does anyone know Peter King's email address at CNNSI?

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

My tainted glasses?? I was a NEP employee, and I've lived and died with this team since the John Stephens days.

You have stated several truisms, but there is no logical link between them. That is where your post and my post differ.

Well, then letekro, where is the "competitive advantage" they gained, which commissioner Godell admits did not exist?

 

[Return of the Nizz]

My gues, PYPER, is that you'll get a response that indicates that a rule was broken. Nothing else is relevant to these journalists.

BTW, does anyone know Peter King's email address at CNNSI?

[email protected]

 

[borg]

Sorry Charlie. Besides the signs themselves, there is a wealth of information to be found that the network broadcasts and coaches tapes can't provide:

1) How long does it take them to get defensive signs in? I can adjust the pace of the offense to the line of scrimmage to take advantage of that.

2) Do they change signs frequently after they see the offensive formation? Might want to quick shift the formation before the snap.

That is just the obvious stuff. I'm sure there is a whole lot more there for someone who is willing to look for it.

For both your examples, any coach with binoculars could determine the speed of signing and if they doubled signed, resigned, or scratched themselves.

 

[Metaphors]

For both your examples, any coach with binoculars could determine the speed of signing and if they doubled signed, resigned, or scratched themselves.

Exactly! But Belichick can't. Know why? Because he is focused on coaching the game. Rather than depend on a low-level staffer (all the coaches have other things to do during the game) to gather this information, why can't the Pats just record the information (that is publicly available to anyone with eyes) and Belichick process the information himself later...or not if he doesn't feel the need to do it?

Know why he can't record the information? Because the league says so. No logic behind the rule...just a rule. Does the rule affect everyone equally? Nope, it disproportionately impacts coaching staffs that are intently engaged with game play, take personal responsibility for everything that goes into the gameplan and put in countless hours in preparation to ensure their team is prepared for anything when they take the field.

Sound familiar? Still wondering why Belichick would feel so put off by this rule that he would pick an ill-advised, public fight with the league?

 

[Bargod]

My take is I agree with you that what Belichick did was brilliant if in fact we consider your point of advanced scouting. It really explains why he taped signals better than anything anyone else has come up.

After reading countless posts and media articles on the subject I'm starting to see a different point of view. They Patriots were cheating by breaking the rules indeed but to say this defines them is where the line divides the two sides.

I've been defending the Patriots to those around me who only know that the cheated. I've declared them not cheaters all week long. I've grown tired of the subject. Most folks who are casual watchers of the game and the bandwagon folks will believe anything. It's comfortable for people to believe that the only way they could have won was to cheat.

Then there’s football enthusiast. The folks who watch every play and live and die with the team. Or live and die with another team and just plain hate the Pats. With this group the debate here is not as clear.

What the patriots did was violate a league by-law. The broke the rule and by definition they cheated. The part we're all trying to get a handle on is why it was done and what kind of advantage it gives the Patriots. We all agree that it has to serve as some advantage or else why was it done? With that, it stands to reason that unless we know why or what the tapes were used for we can't say the titles are tainted or that the only way they can win is to cheat.

Belichick gave his interpretation and said he has never used the tapes in a game. Goodell accpeted this to be true. Kraft knew nothing. My guess is the anti patriots stance will dismiss this all as "well they cheated. how do you know they're not lying?" I don't.

I do know that the rules violation was the taping of defensive signals. Until this year I can't remember a Patriots offense that was so dominant that I could look back and say "yes, of course they knew the plays". In 2004 they had a pretty good year offensively but they weren’t the best in the league and with Corey Dillon as an upgrade I can understand the improvement for that year from previous ones.

I'm still trying to understand the advantage. Even if you know the defensive play it seems like too much would have to happen in a very short amount of time for signal stealing to affectively pay off. That's why I have to argue it doesn't taint the past.

An offensive play is called and substitutions are made
Then the defense makes their substitutions and call their play
Then Brady looks at the defensive personnel, and the formation and has to make his decisions there.
Meanwhile communication in the headset shuts off with 15 seconds left on the play clock
The ball is snapped and the defense has to react to what the offense is doing. Inherently the offense has the advantage because they know where the ball is going. I'd say that even if the quarterback knew what the defense was doing he still has to execute as do the other 10 guys on offense. Even slowing down how quick the lineman get to the line of scrimmage doesn’t matter when you have 25 – 30 seconds to process all that information.

So yes they cheated by violating a rule they were told specifically not to violate.
But this one act does not define how they accomplished everything in the past.
One can label them cheaters as one who cheats to gain an advantage. But unitl you can prove what the advantgae is it takes nothing from their past. What they accomplished they did with preparaiton and detemrniation.

I think someday when Belichick publishes his memoirs we might know but until then I suspect there's not many people know just what he used the tapes for.

 

[allworldrussfrancis]

What the patriots did was violate a league by-law. The broke the rule and by definition they cheated.

That is not my understanding. I thought the By-law banned use of video during the progress of the game. The memo from last year banned the use of video carmeras on the field. See my post above for my thoughts on this. I think Belichick is saying he thought the videotaping for subsequent use was within his interpretation of league rules - i.e., that the memo just clarified a pre-existing rule banning the "use of" video during the progress of the game, which is what the commissioner agreed they were not doing.

I see Belichick's argument that he was within the the speicific rules outlined by the league. The Commissioner disagrees and claims they violated his rule -the rule not being an NFL by-law but the memo he sent out in 2006 which in my opinion should have been more speciifc as it appears to be an extension that goes beyond the by-law's restrictions and not mere guidance.

Bill shold have sought clarification on his interpretation of the rule. His "crime" was arrogance not cheating.

 

[PYPER]

Here is the latest correspondence with Florio over at profootball talk. What say you?




Mike,


Thanks for responding. I appreciate your input. When I wrote the piece, I got a little carried away trying to include an answer to every possible response. Unfortunately, it appears that the main point I was striving to communicate was lost in the process.

In your post earlier today entitled "BELICHICK, PATS PISSED OFF" you included the following comment.

"Apart from the possibility that the Pats will ride the "us against the world" train long enough to bogart the bubbly from the members of the 1972 Dolphins, we think that Belichick or Brady or someone needs to explain exactly what the purpose of videotaping the defensive signals was, if Brady is telling the truth."

I agree completely Mike and that's exactly why I wrote to you in the first place. For all intents and purposes, my name is now "someone".

(I heard that)

Here it is:

Keep in mind that Belichick was exposed to the practice of breaking down game film by his father when he was a child. He is widely regarded as some sort of prodigy in this regard. As such, it makes complete sense that he would push himself to perfect this craft.

The untold story is that Belichick used the footage in question to assist him in developing what is probably best described as "personality profiles" of every coach in the league.

While the coaches film shows the plays that each team ultimately executes, it doesn't show you whether the play was the original call or an adjustment.

For example, if the defense blitzes.....Were they planning on blitzing from the beginning or was the blitz part of the adjustments that came in as a result of what the offense was showing.

The usefullness of the footage in question, is that it could be crossed checked with the coaches film to determine
1) What was the original play call
2) What adjustments did the coaches call for when he saw the offensive formation.

For someone with Belichick's passion and desire to perfect the craft of film study, obtaining footage that could assist him in this way would be like offering Mikey a bowl of Life cereal.

In essence, the video footage in question is like a sort of "key" that unlocks one part of a puzzle.

Once all this info is broken down and cataloged, you might discover that when the opponent is in its base defensive package, Coach Boob blitzes from the left 85% of the time when the offense goes empty backfield.

This is just an example of course, but knowing this tendency will help you design a game plan that consists of plays that would be useful towards attacking a blitz coming from the left with an empty backfield set.

None of this is against the rules. Film study has been a part of football for as long as its been available. All coaches game plan like this to some extent, Belichick just goes above and beyond.

I need your help Mike. Nobody in the sports media has attempted to look at this situation from any other vantage point than the one that wants to portray Belichick as a classless lying cheater. They're wrong Mike. They are way over the top wrong.

Please be somebody who's willing to make waves. Somebody willing to see beyond their own prejudice. Above all else, media coverage needs to be fair and balanced. That's not possible if everyone jumps to the same false assumptions and nobody recognizes any other possibility.



Surf on, dude….

Pyper



(ps…I want some credit. I have a nephew to impress)

 

[ChoWZa]

They violated a rule in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage. That's cheating.

I'm sorry. I love the Pats and will continue to support them to the death, but come on.

Unless you are arguing that a) they didn't violate a rule; or b) they didn't gain (or attempt to gain) a competitive advantage, you can pretty much throw your manifesto in the garbage.

Letekro. I see so many NE fans falling into this trap. Don't just buy what the media tells you and ingrain it in your brain and regurgitate it.

If violating a rule is cheating. Then every penalty we commit in the game labels us cheaters. If its only "off-the-field" rules where this applies, then we were already cheaters for Rodney Harrison using HGH so who cares. The thing you don't realize is you're only coming to this conclusion because of how big a media debacle it has become.

Assuming your logic is there are penalties assessed in game so that makes fouls fair game. Consider a coach having a player take a late hit on a quarterback with intent to injure. I guess that would then make this legit right? Oh wait it depends on what the media tells you.