Oh, and the patriots are the cheaters right?

[JoeSixPat]

Heres a story about what teams are doing with the radios.

"The coach said he knew of one team that equipped its backup quarterback with a device that allowed the backup to feed information to the starter after the 15-second cutoff."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=sando_mike&id=3035449

And NE is out a 1st rounder for taping what can be seen from an entire stadium?
At least the writer added "None of these coaches implicated the Patriots"

Keep in mind that many felt it was no coincidence that the Patriots were made scapegoats regarding the various types of "cheating" that take place throughout the NFL.

Kraft was one of a few holdouts declining to support defenesive helmet radios.

Those that favored the radios publically chortled, supporting the renewed need for them following "spygate".

Turns out that some of these teams might themselves be trying to gain a competitive advantage by breaking the 15 second rule - which can't be viewed in a vacuum with sign stealing - because while signal stealing is legal at any time - including last second play changes - breaking the 15 second rule would allow teams to notify QBs as to those changes.

So this "cheating" is actually much worse than what the Patriots were accused of - signal stealing has no effect if one can't convey that to the QBs

And again, as the report states, its OTHER teams - not the Patriots - who are implicated here.

 

[OhExaulted1]

Roger Goodell

One time Jets employee, lives and works in NY, wife works for FOX, parity means $$$

Eric Mangini

One time Patriots employee, tampered with Deion Branch, noted snitch, Belichick nailed his wife (OK, maybe THAT one didn't happen).

NY and sports media (especially the Exporting Sensationalism and Propaganda Network)

Do I really have to spell this out?

I'll get over the loss of a 1st, but the smear campaign these three entities have orchestrated is beyond repugnant. It literally made everyone forget what Vick did. Ridiculous.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Just sent this along to Florio - at PFT... though I doubt he'd run anything that calls into question the cheating that goes on in the NFL on teams other than the Patriots:

As we all know, Spygate involves the competitive advantage supposedly attained by the Patriots having a cameraman on the sideline (as opposed to the teams with video binocular equipped scouts in the stands) stealing signals for a competitive advantage. The problem with that is the contention that review, analysis, and radioing play changes to the QB before their helmet radios go dark seems like a stretch.

According to ESPN, teams other than the Patriots have been “cheating” in this realm as well (and the QBs themselves can’t claim ignorance) – which coupled with the “legal” signal stealing that everyone admits, makes this a much more significant form of cheating

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=sando_mike&id=3035449

Keep in mind that many felt the Patriots were singled out in a violation that other coaches have since come forward to confirm goes on elsewhere, in part because Bob Kraft was one of a few owners opposed to extending radio helmets to defensive players. The thought was that putting the Patriots on the hot seat would cinch passage of defensive radios with the competition committee.

Seems based on this report that adding helmet radios for defensive players might make the problem of cheating worse, not better.

Of course, no one in the media, including yourself, has any interest in connecting the dots on this one.

By the way, regarding “spygate” - seeing as covert recording via video binoculars would make covert recording exceptionally easy, one must ask themselves the question of WHY Belichick would choose to be so OVERT in his use of a video camera. My theory is that Belichick’s desire was to intimidate opposing coaches and OC’s – in that he WANTED them to see his employee so they would second guess their calls or go to great pains to disguise or change calls.

That type of competitive advantage makes much more sense than a theory that eschews the option for covert recording, and accepts the stretched logic that play signals could be interpreted, analyzed and sent along to QBs before the 15 second blackout occurs.

... which again, illustrates why cheating on the 15 second clock is a much more serious violation of NFL rules.

 

[BradyManny]

Take note of the difference between what you consider my legitimate points and this one: none of the 3 points I made depend on subjective judgment. They are objective facts

Again, you really, really have a lackey mentality.

By the way, if you want to really get into semantics and other bullcrap, and it seems that you really, really do...your second point:

"2) The penalty given, while unprecedented, is within the legitimate range"

Is completely and 100% subjective by the way. If something is unprecedented, then there is no "objective" legitimate range, the precedence is set by a subjective opinion, ie, Goodell's. It was within the "legitimate range" in Goodell's opinion only.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Well, BradyManny, don't know what to tell you.

I specifically stick to what can be proven or disproven objectively, in order to untangle two silly subjective viewpoints that are inimical to one another, yet simultaneously held to be "gospel" by their respective adherents.

I do understand that you believe reliance on the objective signifies a lackey mentality. I have noted that. Once again, it is an opinion, and one that I am not likely to embrace, whether in regards to myself or anybody else.

It strikes me that it's just a simple substitution of the word "lackey" for the word "objective," a verbal taunt with a horrible track record over the years.

By the way, if you want to really get into semantics and other bullcrap, and it seems that you really, really do...your second point:

Is completely and 100% subjective by the way. If something is unprecedented, then there is no "objective" legitimate range, the precedence is set by a subjective opinion, ie, Goodell's. It was within the "legitimate range" in Goodell's opinion only.

The "legitimate range" formulation came from Lloyd, but I stand behind his assessment/phrasing.

The commissioner did not impose a fine beyond the $500K per coach or $250K per team number that the league imposes. He did not overstep his authority as the commish. I do not remember whether the 9ers or other cap villains were ever docked a first rounder, but there is no "Second Round Limit" I am aware of on the commish's power in this regard.

No party to the conflict is holding it to be the case that the commish exceeded his authority. He acted within his powers as the commish, by all accounts, except those told by one bitter fan to one another.

At the management level the league acts more like a partnership than a competitive arena, and we should bear that in mind. When this partnership's authority came down hard on errant players' off-field incidents, everybody on this board thought it was great. When this partnership came down hard on our own Rodney Harrison, a few here started the "here's why we're different..." mantra. When it came to spygate, this board went into an uproar.

If we're right, we're right -- but there's no objective reason to believe we're right. The team itself (players, coaches, owner) got it right -- admit the rule infraction, take your lumps, move on.

"And no, you jackasses, you can't have our rings."

But that's about all we can say.

Those who do not suffer from slavish adherence to objective fact, however, are free to say, "no no, if we tape the signals, even though it's specifically prohibited in the rule book, we're not cheating, because we have a special definition of cheating for our team.... but if you catch us and impose a penalty it's stealing, even though you have not overstepped the authority of your position."

The trouble is, only those who are lackies of objective fact can have any possible credence with those who do not share a localized delusion.

PFnV

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Roger Goodell

One time Jets employee, lives and works in NY, wife works for FOX, parity means $$$

Eric Mangini

One time Patriots employee, tampered with Deion Branch, noted snitch, Belichick nailed his wife (OK, maybe THAT one didn't happen).

NY and sports media (especially the Exporting Sensationalism and Propaganda Network)

Do I really have to spell this out?

I'll get over the loss of a 1st, but the smear campaign these three entities have orchestrated is beyond repugnant. It literally made everyone forget what Vick did. Ridiculous.

Yes, you do have to spell it out. This is classic conspiracy thinking.

I can as well say:

Bill Belichick. Vindictive, spurned, former boss of Mangini.

NE Patriots. Media darlings turned bitter and desperate after two straight non-super years.

In either case one is putting far too much credence in events unrelated to the facts at hand, except for purposes of tangential ex-post-facto speculation.

Hey guys, here's a thought: maybe if we'd just not done it, that bad bad anti-patriotic Mangini and that money grubbing parity-crazed Goodell wouldn't have been able to catch us red-handed.

Boy that woulda fixed their wagon!

PFnV

 

[NovaScotiaPatsFan]

The reason we were fined and docked a draft pick is that we were caught red-handed. If and when the NFL gets solid evidence of another team cheating* I believe the punishment will be similar.

*Or breaking rules, or whatever description you prefer.

I wish I was rich cuz I'd spend all of my time trying to get solid evidence the Jets are cheating, and since I was rich I could just fabricate it if I couldn't find any real evidence.

 

[Pats726]

The commissioner did not impose a fine beyond the $500K per coach or $250K per team number that the league imposes. He did not overstep his authority as the commish. I do not remember whether the 9ers or other cap villains were ever docked a first rounder, but there is no "Second Round Limit" I am aware of on the commish's power in this regard.

No...there is NOT that limit...but with past rulings..of cap violations..there IS precedent...and by making this ruling, it simply is quite out of line with the past taking of draft picks. It is also an area where there has NEVER BEEN any league action...but given the past crimes of having draft picks taken, what has happened is akin to vlasting away ducks not with a rifle but with nuclear weapons. I think MANY football people will say that..and NO many will want more, but if one looks behind their words, there are miles of hidden (or not so hidden) agendas.

At the management level the league acts more like a partnership than a competitive arena, and we should bear that in mind. When this partnership's authority came down hard on errant players' off-field incidents, everybody on this board thought it was great. When this partnership came down hard on our own Rodney Harrison, a few here started the "here's why we're different..." mantra. When it came to spygate, this board went into an uproar.

Excuse me...I know of no one who in anyway way said that Rodney should NOT have been suspended.. so your implication of that is strictly in your head..
As far as Goodell is concerned
----he showed a real weakness by letting public opinion and many other haters in the media and the game influence his opinion..more like following a lynch mob. There is nothing of fairness in that behavier.
----given the fact that it was quite out of line with any past penaltys of draft picks, he very much needed to explain his decision and why it was so severe. Instead of doing this, he deliberately let the waters be clouded to further embarrass a franchise and a coach.
----he also wrapped himself in words about "playing fair" and "honest competition"...and while that is all well and good, it remains to be seen if he will investigate the charges of these added 15 seconds that some teams have added technically. IT IS an advantage and he needs to take actions to prevent that from happening. Also, he needs to employ rotating positions on the Competition Committee, so that ALL teams will be represented over time in the changing of rules. Clearly, the past years, this Committee has been used by those on it to take advantage of rule changes for their owne teams.
This is hardly fair. I do not expect the former to be done in any media splashes, but in memos and a vigourous enforcement of the rules. As far as the latter goes, I doubt he has teh guts to do anything at all.
Let us see if he comes close to his own words on either of these.

 

[DarrylS]

I wish I was rich cuz I'd spend all of my time trying to get solid evidence the Jets are cheating, and since I was rich I could just fabricate it if I couldn't find any real evidence.

Or you could take Rick Cimini to lunch at some high roller place, liquor him up, hook him up with a pro and then blackm...oh never mind, that would be illegal.. there is a difference between thought and action.. thank goodness..

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Or you could take Rick Cimini to lunch at some high roller place, liquor him up, hook him up with a pro and then blackm...oh never mind, that would be illegal.. there is a difference between thought and action.. thank goodness..

Heh heh we'll show ya illegal use of videotape ya bastich...

 

[PatsFanInVa]

726, you're making good points about possible future direction, especially as regards the competition committee.

I do not know how the C.C. was decided to be a force like the U.N. Security Council, with permanent members (in fact, I only gather this from context, but it seems to be the case.)

Since the fairness concern is the point of the C.C., it would probably serve the committee's agenda to rotate the membership through all 32 clubs.

Since the rest of the league's owners never seem to be at all at odds with the decisions of the C.C. however (except maybe Al Davis,) it seems like the league's business is the committee's concern, not advantage to one or another specific club.

That's how the league is built: it's a partnership, not a business-world mirror of what we see on the field on Sundays. My guess is that's why it's just no big deal to other owners that the committee membership doesn't rotate.

But I agree that it is a good idea, because the perception of an anti-competitive competition committee shouldn't be allowed to fester in the public mind.

So anyway: going forward, I have no problems with suggestions about how the league could be better, so don't get me wrong on that account. As of the day of a specific infraction though, the rules are the rules. Your approach is best - if you don't like the rule, change it, don't break it.

PFnV

 

[BradyManny]

The trouble is, only those who are lackies of objective fact can have any possible credence with those who do not share a localized delusion.

Ultimately, if you really want to get down to it, you can make a cogent argument that there is no such thing as objectivity, and that everything is subjective and relative.

So I'd rather deal with the subjective.

FYI, in terms of draft picks, the Niners lost a 3rd and a 5th for their salary cap abuse. The Broncos were penalized a 3rd for cheating the cap as well.

Unfortunately, to weigh one crime against the other, we'll have to deal with the subjective, as there is no objective measure to compare them. Quite honestly, I'd have to say that cheating the salary cap is far worse than breaking the league's policy on videotaping on the sidelines.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Ultimately, if you really want to get down to it, you can make a cogent argument that there is no such thing as objectivity, and that everything is subjective and relative.

So I'd rather deal with the subjective.

FYI, in terms of draft picks, the Niners lost a 3rd and a 5th for their salary cap abuse. The Broncos were penalized a 3rd for cheating the cap as well.

Unfortunately, to weigh one crime against the other, we'll have to deal with the subjective, as there is no objective measure to compare them. Quite honestly, I'd have to say that cheating the salary cap is far worse than breaking the league's policy on videotaping on the sidelines.

You can indeed make that argument, but then there is little point with playing a game with the goal of scoring more points by objectively determined criteria.

Nor is there any point in attempting to establish a factual basis, for what is in effect one among several fictitious accounts of events.

By concluding with comparisons among penalties for cap cheating and videotaping, you once again rely on the objective -- and good for you, from my point of view! But of course, by your own standards, you've only established that in your private world, these events occured, and that I should give you no credence.

Forgive me, my friend, but I do give your statements from the world of objective fact some credence, despite your protestations that I should ignore them.

PFnV

 

[Pats726]

726, you're making good points about possible future direction, especially as regards the competition committee.

I do not know how the C.C. was decided to be a force like the U.N. Security Council, with permanent members (in fact, I only gather this from context, but it seems to be the case.)

Since the fairness concern is the point of the C.C., it would probably serve the committee's agenda to rotate the membership through all 32 clubs.

Since the rest of the league's owners never seem to be at all at odds with the decisions of the C.C. however (except maybe Al Davis,) it seems like the league's business is the committee's concern, not advantage to one or another specific club.

That's how the league is built: it's a partnership, not a business-world mirror of what we see on the field on Sundays. My guess is that's why it's just no big deal to other owners that the committee membership doesn't rotate.

But I agree that it is a good idea, because the perception of an anti-competitive competition committee shouldn't be allowed to fester in the public mind.

So anyway: going forward, I have no problems with suggestions about how the league could be better, so don't get me wrong on that account. As of the day of a specific infraction though, the rules are the rules. Your approach is best - if you don't like the rule, change it, don't break it.

PFnV

I just think Goodell has to be looking forward to things...not just reacting.as in the case with Mangini and the Patriots, but when things ARE brought up..like the 15 second deal, be proactive and find ways ro 1---detect that teams are doing it 2---send out memos reminding teams of the rule..and 3---Find out WHO is doing that and be enforce the rule with severe penalties.
I eally do not CARE if it's with the splash of the media..in fact if he did it all behind the scenes, I would have felt better..(same wth the Patriots, although Mangini upped the anti incredibly, so it got away from him entirely..and probably would have handled it differently looking back... (maybe that is))
Just be FAIR about what is being done going forward...sniff out these gray areas and do something...and there are many many of these..from playbooks stolen to the grabbing of players on teams next on the schedule..to???
There seems to be unwritten rules as well..which he should understand..or at least have ideas about..and where fairness fits in??
But if one looks at teh rules and how they change..is it a coincidence that the emphasis on interference was pushed by the committee after the Colts complained about it? (polien, Dungy on the CC..) Simply put it is NOT fair and since this HAS been the case for years....maybe it needs to be looked at.
Shula did the same for a LONG time previous...but this is Goodell running the show..and he claims he wishes to have an honest playing field..fair play. What fairer way than rotating members on the CC?
The problem, I see with what happened was that NO Commish has ever dealt with these gray area rules and practices by the teams...and that he should have explained himself a lot better afterwords...that the penalty was the severest ever..to me warranted more words to clear things up. The muddied waters were not good...but I do think he realized things had to move on..and was able to do that.

 

[BradyManny]

By concluding with comparisons among penalties for cap cheating and videotaping, you once again rely on the objective -- and good for you, from my point of view! But of course, by your own standards, you've only established that in your private world, these events occurred, and that I should give you no credence.

I've never said the objective should be dismissed. You can't have subjectivity without looking at the essentials, and the other instances in which draft picks were penalized (SF and Denver) can be used to inform our subjective opinions on what the penalty for videotaping should be. My problem with your viewpoint is your blind acceptance of Goodell's decision.

 

[Pujo]

I've never said the objective should be dismissed. You can't have subjectivity without looking at the essentials, and the other instances in which draft picks were penalized (SF and Denver) can be used to inform our subjective opinions on what the penalty for videotaping should be.

In the end, it's one person's subjective opinion, within certain objective boundries, that determines the penalty, and the owners are OK with that since they gave him that kind of authority. You know what, though? You can bet that teams won't break that rule for a long time to come now; mission accomplished. I don't like our team being made an example of, but that's the chance you take when you break the rules. The Pats know this.

 

[djmika760]

Well the name of the topic is "Oh, and the patriots are the cheaters right?". It should be called "Oh, and BB is the cheater right?" The players didnt cheat, BB did. And for him to say he didnt think it was illegal is completely asinine. The memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006 stated: "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game." Claiming he "misinterpreted that" not only undermines the whole NFL community, but insults the intelligence of his organizations fans. When you get caught...ADMIT IT! Since when is ignorance an excuse???

 

[BradyManny]

In the end, it's one person's subjective opinion, within certain objective boundries, that determines the penalty, and the owners are OK with that since they gave him that kind of authority. You know what, though? You can bet that teams won't break that rule for a long time to come now; mission accomplished. I don't like our team being made an example of, but that's the chance you take when you break the rules. The Pats know this.

That's because of the ridiculousness of the penalty. If speeding was punished with execution, you'd bet we'd have pretty safe roads. But would that make the punishment right?

 

[Pujo]

Well the name of the topic is "Oh, and the patriots are the cheaters right?". It should be called "Oh, and BB is the cheater right?" The players didnt cheat, BB did. And for him to say he didnt think it was illegal is completely asinine. The memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006 stated: "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game." Claiming he "misinterpreted that" not only undermines the whole NFL community, but insults the intelligence of his organizations fans. When you get caught...ADMIT IT! Since when is ignorance an excuse???

Honestly, it just wouldn't be in Belichick's interest to admit anything. The punishment speaks for itself, and not admitting that coaches flippantly ignore rules isn't what the NFL wants either. Belichick said the thing that would make this go away the quickest: absolutely nothing, and that was the right thing for the Patriots.

 

[Pujo]

That's because of the ridiculousness of the penalty. If speeding was punished with execution, you'd bet we'd have pretty safe roads. But would that make the punishment right?

That's a very good example, actually. Now why don't the people, through their elected representitives, pass a law allowing, say, a 5 year prison term for speeding? Because they don't feel it's an appropriate punishment. But the owners did give the commissioner that kind of authority - they could have withheld it by specifying what the maximum punishment for each infraction should be, but they left it to his discresion. I have no reason to believe they're regretting that decision.

Our judgement of fairness or lack thereof doesn't substitute the judgement of the people who actually own the NFL and pay the commissioner's salary.