Jimmy Johnson on WFAN

[Keegs]

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"?

why are you pretending that cameras don't have a "zoom" function?

 

[Pujo]

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.

I see, so the Patriots did this for absolutely no reason, they could have gotten the same benefit without doing it, but decided to break a rule just for the hell of it.

The reason the tape didn't give the team a competitive advantage was because it was confiscated, and Belichick didn't have a chance to use it.

Clearly the commissioner thought it was serious enough to take away a high draft pick, but you can go on believing that he thought it was no big deal and that it was just a silly rule, in existence for no reason whatsoever, that the team violated.

 

[Pujo]

why are you pretending that cameras don't have a "zoom" function?

Because you and I both know that zooming affects optical quality & causes the jitters. Again, why did Belichick have the guy filming from the sideline if an equally good, but legal, option was available?

 

[Deus Irae]

I see, so the Patriots did this for absolutely no reason, they could have gotten the same benefit without doing it, but decided to break a rule just for the hell of it.

The reason the tape didn't give the team a competitive advantage was because it was confiscated, and Belichick didn't have a chance to use it.

No, see, you've gone and done it again. You are speculating, and this time you are speculating contrary to the known facts.

Clearly the commissioner thought it was serious enough to take away a high draft pick, but you can go on believing that he thought it was no big deal and that it was just a silly rule, in existence for no reason whatsoever, that the team violated.

Actually, the commissioner thinks cheerleaders warming up near the visitors is a problem, so this doesn't exactly help your cause. However, let's look at what we've now proven:


1.) NE was taping signals from the sidelines
2.) The incident was reported to the NFL and the tape was confiscated
3.) Belichick argued that he had a different interpretation of the rule
4.) The NFL did an investigation and took away a draft pick and money in response
5.) The NFL stated that no competitive edge had been gained for the Jets/Patriots game via the recording
6.) The interpretation issue, from all or most media reports, was regarding whether or not taping for FUTURE help was part of the rule. No evidence has been produced disproving that in any way.

From this, you've extrapolated all sorts of things you have no proof about while ignoring the evidence that runs contrary to your position.

I've got to head out for a bit, but I'll look back at this thread when I return, sometime before 10 pm Eastern time, in case you wish to continue this.

 

[Pujo]

No, I don't wish to continue this, the league has ruled and it's now a moot point. The Pats broke the rules, no matter how badly you want to split hairs, and it's obvious that it was done for a competitive advantage (just not in the same game). That's not speculation, that's common sense, you don't take a risk if there's no reward.

I'll leave you with this quote from Bob Kraft: "This isn't what we're all about. I can tell you this: it won't happen again in the future."

Hmm, what isn't what we're all about? Or do you not want to speculate about that, either?

 

[livinginthe past]

FWIW,

I emailed Florio at PFT (along with many others no doubt) and they've decided to finally put up the story regarding Jimmy Johnson.

Of course, they've stuck to the bare facts at this point - hopefully they'll be as keen as they have been with past Patriots stories to 'join the dots' and tell us what impact this story should have on the public's perception of the 'crime' in question.

Can't quite believe how much mileage they have attempted to extract from the jets fan/law suit thing - hopefully they get as in detail with this one.

 

[SVN]

the media is already spinning it as a JJ backing up BB

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007...rd-mudd-was-the-best-in-the-entire-league-at/

 

[patpatriot]

So Pujo:

Goodell saying you Pats broke the rule ...gimme, gimme, gimme = Goodell Good

Goodell saying the Pats did not cheat in the game= Goodell Bad

F'n hypocrite!

 

[Deus Irae]

I'll leave you with this quote from Bob Kraft: "This isn't what we're all about. I can tell you this: it won't happen again in the future."


Hmm, what isn't what we're all about? Or do you not want to speculate about that, either?

No, I wouldn't want to speculate at all, particularly given that the extension was announced almost simultaneously. It's far too easy to put your own opinions into speculations about the meanings and actions of others.

I didn't respond to the rest of your statement because it wasn't a question, and this was.

 

[Pujo]

So Pujo:

Goodell saying you Pats broke the rule ...gimme, gimme, gimme = Goodell Good

Goodell saying the Pats did not cheat in the game= Goodell Bad

F'n hypocrite!

I have no idea what you're talking about. Both statements are true: the Pats broke the rule, and the Pats did not cheat in the game.

 

[Pujo]

No, I wouldn't want to speculate at all, particularly given that the extension was announced almost simultaneously. It's far too easy to put your own opinions into speculations about the meanings and actions of others.

I didn't respond to the rest of your statement because it wasn't a question, and this was.

But you are speculating.

If you weren't speculating you'd be open to the possibility that the Pats did videotape for the purpose of getting a competitive advantage, and open to the possibility that they didn't. You're sure they didn't, which requires quite a bit of speculation - and cherry picking of what was said, mind you.

Nothing about the extention contradicts Kraft saying, "That's not what we're all about." Like the rest of us, Kraft understands that Belichick did something wrong, but realizes it's not a mortal sin and it's possible to move past it.

 

[PonyExpress]

Peter King says:


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/09/19/mob.mentality0924/index.html
(bolding added)

From CBSSportsline:



http://sportsline.com/nfl/story/10348762

Of course, "According to one GM" is a pretty shady source... but if this is an intentional misrepresentation, it does not seem to be limited to any one source, and it does not seem to be limited to one point of view.

Is there any public source where we can research these memos, or are they basically private correspondence from the league to the owners/coaches?

You may be right, but it's also possible some underling at ESPN started using a "Sept 6 memo" thinking it was the second memo that reinforced the 9/6/2006 memo, without knowing that the 9/6 date applied to the earlier one. Finally, it's possible that both memos went out on 9/6 in different years (although very unlikely.)

Regardless, it's difficult to ascertain the date of the reminder memo from what you've posted. It's also a leap to conclude that no reminder memo existed. But I'm definitely open to that being the case.

PFnV

My take on this SI reference: They were victims of the same misinformation campaign which has affected so many laymen. The mysterious elision of "2006" from reports about the "Sept 6 memo". As a result, at the time of the composition of that article, they were under the misimpression that there were 2 memos. As for the unnamed GM, why is he unnamed? Why does the writer use an unnamed source to confirm the existence of a generic memo?

The NFL, in its official statement, refers to its memo from 2006. If a more recent one existed they would have referred to it, IOT strengthen the justification for so harsh a penalty. This is just one small facet of the "rush to judgment", an example of overt laziness and lack of attention to detail so characteristic of the mob pushing this story. They created a narrative which touched the public consciousness. Any variation from that narrative dilutes the effect of the morality play they have constructed. Sadly, history is about telling memorable stories, not about telling truthful ones.

 

[Deus Irae]

But you are speculating.

If you weren't speculating you'd be open to the possibility that the Pats did videotape for the purpose of getting a competitive advantage, and open to the possibility that they didn't. You're sure they didn't, which requires quite a bit of speculation - and cherry picking of what was said, mind you.

I have not speculated on any part of this. The commissioner said the Patriots got no edge. That's not speculation. Your arguments, other than the basic "the camera was on the field", were wrong and based upon speculation without evidence. Deal with it and move on.

I've never denied any of the following:

1.) There was a rule/memo regarding use of videocameras on the sidelines

2.) While there is a valid construction of that memo/rule which would allow one to feel it was within the boundaries of the rule/memo to tape for future purposes, there is also a valid construction which would not allow for that.

3.) This taping was done with a purpose, and that was to steal signals

4.) BB should probably have tried to get the issue clarified with the league rather than just acting upon his interpretation of the rule.

The difference between us is that I'm not pretending to know more than I really do, whereas your entire argument hinges on you pretending that you know much more than you really do.

Nothing about the extention contradicts Kraft saying, "That's not what we're all about." Like the rest of us, Kraft understands that Belichick did something wrong, but realizes it's not a mortal sin and it's possible to move past it.

Nothing about "That's not what we're all about" is an admission of any purposeful guilt or anything other than a divergent opinion as to the interpretation of a rule, either. Yet, AGAIN, you speculate as to its meaning.

 

[alamo]

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?

The policy seems clearly to me to be geared against in-game advantage. Note that the prohibition against recording equiplent extends to all areas where the coaches are suring the game, including the locker room. Exactly what can you film in the locker room? Nothing... but you can play back a tape which was recorded elsewhere. I think the policy is either worded so clumsily or is old enough that seems to assume that to view the video in-game the videocam must be present to play it back. There are obviously ways around that but I believe they didn't consier those ways when wording the rule.

Before you say that's crazy... that exact point (that the spirit of the rule is solely to prohibit in-game use of the video) was Belichick's entire basis for justifying the Patriot's actions.

 

[alamo]

the media is already spinning it as a JJ backing up BB

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007...rd-mudd-was-the-best-in-the-entire-league-at/

It's worth noting the author of that blog, Maichael David Smith, also works for ProFootballTalk.

 

[AzPatsFan]

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?

Grow up idiot.

The Pats and every other club, have almost 200 private enclosed boxes with a "roof and walls", boxes that they sell to Fans. Any could be used. If they wanted their own private area in the off season they repartition two boxes and create a private third one for the filmers in between. That is assuming they couldn't get a box owner fan to donate part of his space...

 

[italian pat patriot]

great ! no doubt: 5 stars thread

 

[Pujo]

I have not speculated on any part of this. The commissioner said the Patriots got no edge. That's not speculation.

That could be simply because the tape was confiscated before it was used. If you want to extrapolate that to mean, "The Patriots would not have gotten an advantage even if they'd gotten away with it." that's speculation.

 

[Pujo]

Grow up idiot.

The Pats and every other club, have almost 200 private enclosed boxes with a "roof and walls", boxes that they sell to Fans. Any could be used. If they wanted their own private area in the off season they repartition two boxes and create a private third one for the filmers in between. That is assuming they couldn't get a box owner fan to donate part of his space...

Ignoring your very mature introduction, game personnel can't be in any of those rooms. The NFL has rules on where everyone who's involved in the game may and may not be. You tell me, why did they film from the field instead of using one of those 200 perfectly available rooms? C'monn, prove that I'm the idiot and answer me that.

 

[PonyExpress]

Ignoring your very mature introduction, game personnel can't be in any of those rooms. The NFL has rules on where everyone who's involved in the game may and may not be. You tell me, why did they film from the field instead of using one of those 200 perfectly available rooms? C'monn, prove that I'm the idiot and answer me that.

:blahblah: :blahblah: :bricks: