Jimmy Johnson on WFAN

[MoLewisrocks]

Johnson said these same things 2 weeks ago. Nearly every member of the media who acted so righteous opposed to "cheating" will not go near them as it makes them look like idiots.

Most team fans from other teams too can't bring themsleves to accept that Tony Dungy's assistant was the "best" at videotaping signals

So everyone will continue to delude themselves and continue on the "cheating" bandwagon regardless of the truth.

I've long ago stopped worrying about what anyone in the media, or what other ignorant or deluded fans think

Belichick knows what the truth is - Jimmy Johnson knows what the truth is - all the members of the Patriots know what the truth is - and we know what the truth is - the truth just doesn't happen to fit in with the way the media and other team fans WANT the truth to be

The only thing we can do is whip each and every team and shove this down their throats!

Even as a retired old school HC, it's a little odd that Jimmy would name names unless perhaps he was sending a thinly veiled message. Mudd is not a Dungy assistant, he was a Mora. Sr assistant who was retained, as was the entire Mora offense, when Dungy was hired to overhaul the defense and assume the HC title. Howard's been there since 1998. Plausible deniability for MLKDungy.

Dovetails with Clayton's who-done-it tale of two teams who he was told were currently using video taped defensive signals in game by burning DVD's at the half and assigning 2 assistants to match them up with the first half polaroids so they would have the code cracked about 8 minutes into the second half. Wouldn't say who the teams were of course, but he said the tell was amazing second half offensive adjustments.

I don't mind the 1st, although it was overkill, because BB is worth that annually if need be. It's the hypocricy in the hysteria that blew a procedural violation into "spygate" that pisses me off. But I'm quite sure Bill is from the school that says don't get mad, get even.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yup, you mean me. I overgeneralized "rules", but everything I said still stands for this rule. It wasn't made because they didn't want the deffensive coordinator being caught on film on a bad hair day, it was made so one team could not get a certain advantage over another. You can contest that if you want, but it's as clear as day.

Now, explain how filming from the sideline instead of from a room with a view gives a competitive advantage that the other location doesn't.

 

[Deus Irae]

So he won't be up for another extention again? Anyway, I'll wait until I hear of the outrage from the owners, until then I'll assume none.

I think that we can speculate enough to say that, should BB make it to 2013 as head coach, any decision on an extension would have little or nothing to do with these actions in 2007. You don't really think Kraft would wait 6 years to deal with this in a more final manner if he felt that to be appropriate, do you?

 

[slam]

Thanks for the transcription of this very important interview. Great job.

 

[TimU]

Nice link, thanks.

I am reminded that "Mike and the Mad Dog" is much better than anything we have on the radio up here, IMHO. The hosts are truly avid sports fans, they are knowledgeable, they have tons of interesting guests, and they spend a lot of time covering the national sports scene, including out-of-town teams. They cover not only pro baseball and football, but also NBA, college sports, golf, and even tennis. No politics, no scatalogical humor.

WEEI, by contrast, has few guests, and the hosts talk endlessly about nothing other than the latest controversy surrounding either the Red Sox or Pats. And politics.

 

[upstater1]

Would you doubt that the Pats do the same thing? More importantly, are you aware of an explicit rule against it?

Well, I thought we were talking about fairness here, beating a team one on one as everyone is lecturing us. Just because there's an explicit rule doesn't mean anything, especially when the NFL can't even legislate against stealing signals.

Here's the money quote for me:

Costas to Goodell: "How are you going to legislate against high technology taping, binoculars with taping capability and the like?"

Goodell: "Bob, but this wasn't high technology. They had a regular camera in the open on the sidelines."

What does this tell ya? Goodell cares very little about whether there's rule against it or not. It's simply keeping up with appearances.

 

[BelichickFan]

Well, I thought we were talking about fairness here, beating a team one on one as everyone is lecturing us. Just because there's an explicit rule doesn't mean anything, especially when the NFL can't even legislate against stealing signals.

Right, if it were about fairness then they'd be trying to stop all the sign stealing that all teams do. It was about breaking the rules. We got a DUI sentence for speeding.

 

[Pujo]

Now, explain how filming from the sideline instead of from a room with a view gives a competitive advantage that the other location doesn't.

What room with a view? There's no room where you can get a view to tape the deffensive cooridnators giving signals. Why do you think the Pats put their cameraman on the field?

 

[Pujo]

I think that we can speculate enough to say that, should BB make it to 2013 as head coach, any decision on an extension would have little or nothing to do with these actions in 2007. You don't really think Kraft would wait 6 years to deal with this in a more final manner if he felt that to be appropriate, do you?

Not Belichick's extention, Goodell's extention, which would be voted on the the entire ownership.

 

[Pujo]

Well, I thought we were talking about fairness here, beating a team one on one as everyone is lecturing us. Just because there's an explicit rule doesn't mean anything, especially when the NFL can't even legislate against stealing signals.

Here's the money quote for me:

Costas to Goodell: "How are you going to legislate against high technology taping, binoculars with taping capability and the like?"

Goodell: "Bob, but this wasn't high technology. They had a regular camera in the open on the sidelines."

What does this tell ya? Goodell cares very little about whether there's rule against it or not. It's simply keeping up with appearances.

That's not what it tells me, what it tells me is that he's going to enforce the rule to the best of his ability. Now if someone comes up with an invisibility cloak he might have trouble keeping them out, but he'll bust someone every time he catches them red-handed.

Having an explicit rule is the only thing that matters, by the way. Breaking a rule that doesn't exist isn't really breaking a rule, now is it?

 

[Deus Irae]

What room with a view? There's no room where you can get a view to tape the deffensive cooridnators giving signals. Why do you think the Pats put their cameraman on the field?

Again, from the "punishment" explanation letter:

NFL policy states that “no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches’ booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game” and that all video shooting locations for club coaching purposes “must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead.”

In other words, teams CAN record, it just can't be on the sidelines. So, what's the competitive advantage gained by filming on the sidelines instead of from a 'room with a view' you're talking about?

 

[Deus Irae]

Not Belichick's extention, Goodell's extention, which would be voted on the the entire ownership.

My mistake for the misunderstanding about this. I'm sure Goodell will have opportunities to improve/worsen his standing with the owners in the future, but his work to date has been a disaster, and I think that's becoming more obvious now that he's meddling with cheerleader warmup locations.

As you say, we shall see.

 

[Pujo]

Again, from the "punishment" explanation letter:



In other words, teams CAN record, it just can't be on the sidelines. So, what's the competitive advantage gained by filming on the sidelines instead of from a 'room with a view' you're talking about?

Because there ARE NO "rooms with a view". If there were and team personnel were allowed to be there, you can be sure they'd be on the no-video-cameras-list, too. Otherwise why ban video cameras in the coaching booth but not in other "rooms with a view"?

 

[Deus Irae]

Because there ARE NO "rooms with a view". If there were and team personnel were allowed to be there, you can be sure they'd be on the no-video-cameras-list, too. Otherwise why ban video cameras in the coaching booth but not in other "rooms with a view"?

There are "Rooms with a view" all over the place.

 

[Pujo]

There are "Rooms with a view" all over the place.

The NFL has very specific rules about who's allowed to be where, team personnel don't hang out in rooms with a view. Seriously, you tell me, why ban video taping from the coaching booth & field, but allow it from easily accessible rooms with a view? And then tell me why Belichick still decided to break a rule when it would be so easy to video tape the signals without breaking a rule?

 

[Deus Irae]

The NFL has very specific rules about who's allowed to be where, team personnel don't hang out in rooms with a view. Seriously, you tell me, why ban video taping from the coaching booth & field, but allow it from easily accessible rooms with a view? And then tell me why Belichick still decided to break a rule when it would be so easy to video tape the signals without breaking a rule?

You still haven't answered my question. What competitive advantage is gained by taping from the sidelines rather than a room in the stadium?

As for team personnel not hanging out in rooms with a view, feel free to look into luxury boxes anytime you choose. Kraft has one of his own, just for an example.

 

[Pujo]

You still haven't answered my question. What competitive advantage is gained by taping from the sidelines rather than a room in the stadium?

You're asking the question backwards. Since the Patriots obviously DID tape from the sidelines rather than "room in the stadium", they thought it gave them some kind of advantage over doing it your war. Why did they do it? Surely you're not going to deny that they did it, so WHY?

Again, the Pats DID tape from the sidelines, NOT from some kind of room. Why??

 

[Deus Irae]

You're asking the question backwards. Since the Patriots obviously DID tape from the sidelines rather than "room in the stadium", they thought it gave them some kind of advantage over doing it your war. Why did they do it? Surely you're not going to deny that they did it, so WHY?

Again, the Pats DID tape from the sidelines, NOT from some kind of room. Why??

No, I'm not asking the question backwards. You are dodging the question. There is a big difference.


Again:

What competitive advantage is gained by taping from the sidelines rather than a room in the stadium?

 

[Pujo]

No, I'm not asking the question backwards. You are dodging the question. There is a big difference.


Again:

What competitive advantage is gained by taping from the sidelines rather than a room in the stadium?

It's a moot question since there are no rooms in the stadium they can film from, but if you're going to force the point I'll say that the advantage of filming from the sidelines is a better view, hence an advantage in the quality of the recording and the ability to extract useful information from it.

Now you answer my question. If there is no advantage, why did the Patriots elect to break a rule rather than doing it from a "room with a view"?

 

[Deus Irae]

It's a moot question since there are no rooms in the stadium they can film from, but if you're going to force the point I'll say that the advantage of filming from the sidelines is a better view, hence an advantage in the quality of the recording and the ability to extract useful information from it.

Now you answer my question. If there is no advantage, why did the Patriots elect to break a rule rather than doing it from a "room with a view"?

It's NOT a moot question, as I've already proven. You are so gung ho to prove something that's wrong that you keep ignoring clear and obvious facts. And, in this case, you haven't even given an honest answer, choosing once again to speculate rather than actually answer the question.

The honest answer to my question, from your point of view, is simply this:

"I don't know if it does, or does not, give any competitive advantage to be filming from the field as opposed to filming from a room with a view."

As for your question, you are asking me to speculate, and that's been done far too often during this ridiculous matter. However, if you could put a camera guy who is working for you either near you or away from you, which would be your choice, all things being equal?

The problem with your argument is that you keep speculating rather than using the facts at hand. There was no competitive edge gained in the game, according to the Commissioner.