Welcome to PatsFans.com

Our "Cheating": 4 Asinine Assumptions

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Iron Helmet, Sep 14, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Iron Helmet

    Iron Helmet Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    256
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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.
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2007
  2. PYPER

    PYPER Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    675
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    You forgot the main assumption:

    That BB was using the video footage for the purposes of stealing signals during games to "cheat"

    If, as we suspect, this was instead an attempt to familiarize himself with coaching staff tendencies, its a completely different issue.

    But the simpletons and talking monkeys aren't even acknowledging this possibility.

    They've convicted him of cheating despite no evidence to do so. All they've got is a video camera. They have absolutely NO idea what it could be used for other than cheating. That's their own limitation and stupidity.
  3. emoney_33

    emoney_33 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    5,194
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0



    Exactly this whole thing has turned into a sign stealing issue when I'm 99% positive that the video would not have been used for signs at all at any point ever. I'm sure they attempt to decipher signals during the game, but not by recording them, that's for damn sure.

    Pats got in trouble for breaking a rule and then it turned into a giant debate of sign stealing and the pats cheating and blah blah. The funniest part is every single person in the media is calling BB at the least stupid for making it so obvious and not hiding it. Instead of realizing he is a smart person and this is not the case, they take the lazy and biased road and chalk up to "arrogance".

    But I am sure glad we live in the age of message boards because the media is just pitiful in this day and age
  4. Iron Helmet

    Iron Helmet Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    256
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    The underlying message of my post is that if people (media) looked at things a bit closer, they would realize that their idea of the type of "cheating" BB was doing (ingame signal stealing for an ingame, realtime advantage) is impossible.

    Funny...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. Sad.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>