CBS' Jim Nantz: Herald's LIEgate story X-factor in Pats' SB loss?

[NEPatriot]

But wait, weren't most (if not all) Pats fans saying the team could use EVERY peripheral storyline as "fuel" to motivate them? Spygate was motivation, Brady's fathering issue was motivation, Harrison's drug issue was motivation, Moss' alleged trouble with his girl was motivation. If I remember correctly, the supposed tapes of the Rams game was also fuel for the fire for the Pats. And now it's partially resposible for their loss?? You must be kidding me. None of those other issues had any negative impact on their performance. Why would this? You can't have it both ways. Man up and accept the loss for what it was. If Spygate didn't help you win previous Superbowls, how did this make you lose one?

the problem was our OWN Boston newspaper. So much for local newspaper support, heh.?

we are not trying to have both ways. We simply try to tell you that it is the way.

 

[hambone1818]

But wait, weren't most (if not all) Pats fans saying the team could use EVERY peripheral storyline as "fuel" to motivate them? Spygate was motivation, Brady's fathering issue was motivation, Harrison's drug issue was motivation, Moss' alleged trouble with his girl was motivation. If I remember correctly, the supposed tapes of the Rams game was also fuel for the fire for the Pats. And now it's partially resposible for their loss?? You must be kidding me. None of those other issues had any negative impact on their performance. Why would this? You can't have it both ways. Man up and accept the loss for what it was. If Spygate didn't help you win previous Superbowls, how did this make you lose one?

There's a difference: on the one hand, you have stories that provide motivation (to a degree), you have players that might work that little extra bit to disprove something...it's not new or revolutionary. Hell, even in division III college hockey I found this to be absolutely true.

On the other hand you have what this is: a distraction for a coach who works 18 hours a day every day of the football season to prepare for games. Taking multiple hours away from that preparation MIGHT (again, myself and pretty much everyone else on here has never said DID) have a small effect.

It's not that it DID have a negative effect; it's that it MAY HAVE, and what we do know is that for Belichick it couldn't have been anything but a distraction, that much is absolutely 100% fact.

 

[MiChargers]

the problem was our OWN Boston newspaper. So much for local newspaper support, heh.?

we are not trying to have both ways. We simply try to tell you that it is the way.

Don't get me wrong, you guys have all the right in the world to be pissed with the Herald. I'd be embarrassed to have a local paper do that to the home team. The point is, how can you use external factors as a motivating factor when you win, then turn around and call them a hinderance when you lose?

 

[Joker]

I don't know...I got it...let's ASK LT!!!

 

[PromisedLand]

Actually Jonathan Kraft made mention of this on WEEI today, saying that he felt that on the Saturday before the Super Bowl, the film and scouting staff had much better things to be doing than to be huddled with the Patriots brass and their lawyers confirming that they were not involved in the taping of the Rams walk through.

Did that detract from their game preparation? I don't think anyone would assert it helped.

JK said that? Then that would have ABSOLUTELY been a factor in the game. I felt the deciding factor was the coaching staff's inability to adjust the blocking schemes to stop the Giants pass rush stunts and twists. Maybe they were all working on sleep deprivation, due to having to meet with the lawyers AND prepare for the game? Definitely could have made the difference, in my mind.

PS - 3/5 of the Pats oline were Pro Bowlers. Granted that might be overrating them a bit, but these guys gave Brady GREAT protection all year long. The Giants made them look like third-stringers in that game. The Giants peaked at the right time, but they didn't suddenly morph into supermen. I definitely think the coaches may have been affected.

 

[Kontradiction]

But wait, weren't most (if not all) Pats fans saying the team could use EVERY peripheral storyline as "fuel" to motivate them? Spygate was motivation, Brady's fathering issue was motivation, Harrison's drug issue was motivation, Moss' alleged trouble with his girl was motivation. If I remember correctly, the supposed tapes of the Rams game was also fuel for the fire for the Pats. And now it's partially responsible for their loss?? You must be kidding me. None of those other issues had any negative impact on their performance. Why would this? You can't have it both ways. Man up and accept the loss for what it was. If Spygate didn't help you win previous Superbowls, how did this make you lose one?

Motivation is one thing. The fact that you're probably going to be called in by a U.S. Senator for questioning over something as explosive as the story that was published is another thing.

 

[MiChargers]

There's a difference: on the one hand, you have stories that provide motivation (to a degree), you have players that might work that little extra bit to disprove something...it's not new or revolutionary. Hell, even in division III college hockey I found this to be absolutely true.

On the other hand you have what this is: a distraction for a coach who works 18 hours a day every day of the football season to prepare for games. Taking multiple hours away from that preparation MIGHT (again, myself and pretty much everyone else on here has never said DID) have a small effect.

It's not that it DID have a negative effect; it's that it MAY HAVE, and what we do know is that for Belichick it couldn't have been anything but a distraction, that much is absolutely 100% fact.

Right, I agree. But wouldn't you think that the whole spygate thing, in of itself, would have been much more distracting? I don't recall that being an issue, resulting in too many losses. In fact, it was stated that BB used it to run up scores to blow the whole idea of cheating out the window. So, now there "might be" some tape of a walkthrough from years ago (not like the tape of week 1 with the Jets THIS YEAR, mind you) and that's going to somehow cause BB and the team to flounder. BB knew it was a lie, so why would it matter? Why would he care? He already got dealt his medicine.

 

[NEPatriot]

Don't get me wrong, you guys have all the right in the world to be pissed with the Herald. I'd be embarrassed to have a local paper do that to the home team. The point is, how can you use external factors as a motivating factor when you win, then turn around and call them a hinderance when you lose?

How do you play your game when you know that whatever you are going to do will be discredited because somebody falsely and publicly accuse.?

You will not be focused on your goal because you have to deal with the problem. I'm not talking about a SB42 game. I'm talking about other Pats achievements and everybody in organization wondered what would happen to BB and Pats team.

Do you know why we lost the Vietnam War.? because our soldiers didn't receive our public support.

 

[hambone1818]

Motivation is one thing. The fact that you're probably going to be called in by a U.S. Senator for questioning over something as explosive as the story that was published is another thing.

Yeah, GREAT point...I think the effect--psychologically--on the players was next to nothing (as I've said, I think if at all it would have effected Belichick and his schemes/preparation), but it can't be discounted that right after the Super Bowl it was laughed at that 'Manning would be attending a parade when Brady would be meeting with Specter in DC'.

 

[hambone1818]

Right, I agree. But wouldn't you think that the whole spygate thing, in of itself, would have been much more distracting? I don't recall that being an issue, resulting in too many losses. In fact, it was stated that BB used it to run up scores to blow the whole idea of cheating out the window. So, now there "might be" some tape of a walkthrough from years ago (not like the tape of week 1 with the Jets THIS YEAR, mind you) and that's going to somehow cause BB and the team to flounder. BB knew it was a lie, so why would it matter? Why would he care? He already got dealt his medicine.

The difference is, he absolutely refused to deal with anything spy-gate related during the season. He talked about it once, briefly, and probably dealt with it with the PR team a few times (again, this is during the regular season, when they were playing juggernauts like Buffalo and Miami). Meanwhile, the walkthrough 'story' came through ON THE EVE OF THE SUPER BOWL. I'm not sure if you see the distinction, but I certainly do. At 9pm the night before the biggest game of his life, Belichick was, by all accounts, meeting with Kraft, PR personnel and regular employees to figure out the story, research the details and put together a response. Again, the man works 18 hours every single day during the regular season, this was NOT a distraction he needed.

 

[MiChargers]

The difference is, he absolutely refused to deal with anything spy-gate related during the season. He talked about it once, briefly, and probably dealt with it with the PR team a few times (again, this is during the regular season, when they were playing juggernauts like Buffalo and Miami). Meanwhile, the walkthrough 'story' came through ON THE EVE OF THE SUPER BOWL. I'm not sure if you see the distinction, but I certainly do. At 9pm the night before the biggest game of his life, Belichick was, by all accounts, meeting with Kraft, PR personnel and regular employees to figure out the story, research the details and put together a response. Again, the man works 18 hours every single day during the regular season, this was NOT a distraction he needed.

Agreed, but BB seems to be pretty good at compartmentalizing things. Anything that was brought up just hours before the game would obviously have to take a back seat for bigger things (ie. game prep). Knowing it wasnt true, I cant imagine BB got too caught up in it. I'm not convinced it had an impact. One thing for sure, the Herald should hang it's head in shame. And even if the story had no impact whatsoever, the Pats organization still has legitimate grounds for a civil suit IMO.

 

[ScottieC]

Agreed, but BB seems to be pretty good at compartmentalizing things. Anything that was brought up just hours before the game would obviously have to take a back seat for bigger things (ie. game prep). Knowing it wasnt true, I cant imagine BB got too caught up in it. I'm not convinced it had an impact. One thing for sure, the Herald should hang it's head in shame. And even if the story had no impact whatsoever, the Pats organization still has legitimate grounds for a civil suit IMO.

I hope you're right, but I know when I heard the story I felt sick - and not the kinda sick I felt when the Sept. BS hit - I felt bad and seriously worried about the legacy of the team.

Like you said, Bill probably did not let it bother him and the O Line really dropped that ball that Sunday, but I agree to a certin degree that this kinda news could have had a completely different effect on the principles involved - Hell, just think of Bill and what he must have been thinking Kraft thought of him after that story broke.

 

[PatsFan24]

i dont think there was a distraction, i think the pats just got beat.

 

[richpats]

First off, Belichick pulled the team off the field the WEDNESDAY before the Super Bowl because they looked awful in practice. Then you have the team talking about "the biggest game of their lives", Brady scoffing at 17 points - the team wasn't focused on the Giants nearly as much as they should have been - this was BEFORE the story broke.

 

[hambone1818]

Agreed, but BB seems to be pretty good at compartmentalizing things. Anything that was brought up just hours before the game would obviously have to take a back seat for bigger things (ie. game prep). Knowing it wasnt true, I cant imagine BB got too caught up in it. I'm not convinced it had an impact. One thing for sure, the Herald should hang it's head in shame. And even if the story had no impact whatsoever, the Pats organization still has legitimate grounds for a civil suit IMO.

Jesus...I'm not arguing just to argue here but it's like talking to a brick wall. No one here said it definitively had an impact on the game, and I'm pretty sure every has said IF there was any impact on the game planning, then it was minimal. What we've all been saying is that there MAY have been a negative impact, and IF there was anything then it was a bigger impact than anything it did to Coughlin before the SB, which means it's a bigger impact than it should have had.

That's it and that's all.

 

[letekro]

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80855f35

Nantz is the first major media member to suggest the obvious.

I don't find this ridiculous excuse for poor performance to be "obvious." Maybe it's an obvious excuse, but it has NOTHING to do with the poor play on the field. Other than Light, no members of the offensive line that were beaten like redheaded stepchildren all day were on that 2001 team, so that would be one pretty lame excuse for them.

 

[ScottieC]

First off, Belichick pulled the team off the field the WEDNESDAY before the Super Bowl because they looked awful in practice. Then you have the team talking about "the biggest game of their lives", Brady scoffing at 17 points - the team wasn't focused on the Giants nearly as much as they should have been - this was BEFORE the story broke.

Yea, I agree with you that we got beat. Plain and simple, we played horrible. There's nothing to be proud of when you look back at the game except MAYBE the fact that as bad as we played, and it was horrible, we still had a chance to win it with 30 seconds to go.....that speaks to how good our team was in 2007 - They can play the WORST game all season and still only loose by 3 and have a chance to win with 30 sec on the clock.

Anyway - My point was that even though we got beat, I still think that the story had an impact on the players and coaches. I'm not blaming the loss on the story, I'm just saying it would be impossible to say that there was no effect on the veterans that had fought thru Super Bowl 36.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

JIm Nance's commentary on accountability in journalism was like a breath of fresh air!
Wouldn't it be great to see some respectable, big market journalists begin to speak out about things like ethics and responsibility? It's time some of our local yokels got taken down a peg or two. If you decide to try and take down the NFL's main money maker, you'd better know what you're doing. I'd love to see CBS get in the mix, maybe do a commentary on journalistic standards, legalities, etc. - get a comment from Dan Rather... Woodward and Bernstein lol Seriously though, who do these local sports writers think they are?

 

[hambone1818]

Yea, I agree with you that we got beat. Plain and simple, we played horrible. There's nothing to be proud of when you look back at the game except MAYBE the fact that as bad as we played, and it was horrible, we still had a chance to win it with 30 seconds to go.....that speaks to how good our team was in 2007 - They can play the WORST game all season and still only loose by 3 and have a chance to win with 30 sec on the clock.

Anyway - My point was that even though we got beat, I still think that the story had an impact on the players and coaches. I'm not blaming the loss on the story, I'm just saying it would be impossible to say that there was no effect on the veterans that had fought thru Super Bowl 36.

Yup, agreed on every point. I remember saying at halftime: this is the absolute worst I've seen this team play; they're getting killed on offense and killed on defense..and yet they're up by three...amazing.

I wouldn't take anything away from the Giants, because on the field they absolutely throttled the Pats on both sides of the line, which is why they won the game.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

First off, Belichick pulled the team off the field the WEDNESDAY before the Super Bowl because they looked awful in practice. Then you have the team talking about "the biggest game of their lives", Brady scoffing at 17 points - the team wasn't focused on the Giants nearly as much as they should have been - this was BEFORE the story broke.

You're right-there were some "out-of-character" things that occurred before Spygate II broke, things that weren't what we've been used to seeing and hearing. But had the story not broken when it did, could the Pats have gotten past those things and maybe won? We'll never know, but sometimes I do wonder if Spygate II was like the straw that broke the camel's back. I can't think of another team who could've withstood the kind of pressure the Pats did all season long and still accomplish what they did. What angers me the most is that we'll never know what may have happened had that story never broken. I wish they had played the SB without that freakin story breaking when it did.
What would their season have been like if Spygate had never happened at all?
I wonder if they would have lost a game along the way? Spygate or not, the 16-0 pressure was huge in itself. Then after that-there's no opportunity to lose anymore.