Pat Kirwin on Sirius NFL Radio

[Rob0729]

He said that the media has blown the spygate story out of proportions. He pointed out that if videotaping signals are that important, why have the Pats beaten the Dolphins the first game of the season and lost the second game of the season the last three years. Which is a great point.

 

[Kdo5]

Thank you, Kirwin. Some people in the media know what they're talking about. The rest are a bunch of morons.

 

[sarge]

I was worried before I clicked on this.

I always enjoyed reading Kirwan and didn't want to have to remove him from my read list.

I had enjoyed reading King, but what he just did in his last article was beyond dispicable.

The fact that he was probably swamped with thousands of emails from Patriot fans supporting the coach yet only posted one email from probably a handfull of Patriot fans not supporting there coach shows me that King is dishonest.

I don't mind reading people who disagree with me. I would just like to hear both sides of the argument.

And King has proven that he selectively picks emails of only those who support his opinion.

I'm done reading him!

 

[BelichickFan]

I heard Kirwan (who worked with Belichick in Cleveland) on the radio and he said what we all know. Stealing signs isn't illegal or cheating. But that we should have done it another way.

 

[Metaphors]

If anyone wants to play the "Superbowl years are tainted" angle, they should look at the games played those years. I looked at 2003 and 2004 for instances where the Pats played a team twice within a year's time and the second time resulted in a significant offensive gain for the Pats.

In 34 victories, there were only only 5 games that qualified as having the potential for the Pats gaining some kind of unfair advantage...and 3 are easily explained:

2003 BUF 31-0 (lost 0-31 earlier that year)

No explanation needed for anyone who saw the games. The teams were mirror images of each other from the start to the end of the year.

2004 at CLE 42-15 (won 9-3 the year before)

The 2003 game was the fluke (God it was awful to watch) and the Browns had already begun circling the drain by that time in 2004.

2004 AFCC at PIT 41-27 (lost 20-34 earlier that year)

I had to tape the game since it was on Halloween night and I have young kids. Never got around to watch the tape but gathered that the game wasn't pretty. Regardless, the Pats' defense forced a boatload of turnovers in the AFCC game to account for the scoring (and winning) difference.

Here are the two games that I don't have a ready explanation available for the scoring difference:

2003 TEN 38-30 (lost 7-24 the year before)
2003 at DEN 30-26 (lost 16-24 the year before)

I could just say the 2003 team was dramatically better than the 2002 team (and I would be correct) but that is too easy. If I get a chance I'll see if I power up the wayback machine and see if anything jumps out at me.

The point is that in those 2 superbowl years (34-4), there were exactly 2 games out of 38 that a reasonable person could suspect that "cheating" was involved. So the "tainted" superbowl argument just doesn't wash when exposed to the facts.

 

[Hoodie]

Oh, have the Pats lost any games since BB became head coach?

As someone asked on the Whiner Line, "where the hell was that damn camera last January?"

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

As someone asked on the Whiner Line, "where the hell was that damn camera last January?"

Here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=23oEg5ljBkY

 

[jman924]

If anyone wants to play the "Superbowl years are tainted" angle, they should look at the games played those years. I looked at 2003 and 2004 for instances where the Pats played a team twice within a year's time and the second time resulted in a significant offensive gain for the Pats.

In 34 victories, there were only only 5 games that qualified as having the potential for the Pats gaining some kind of unfair advantage...and 3 are easily explained:

2003 BUF 31-0 (lost 0-31 earlier that year)

No explanation needed for anyone who saw the games. The teams were mirror images of each other from the start to the end of the year.

2004 at CLE 42-15 (won 9-3 the year before)

The 2003 game was the fluke (God it was awful to watch) and the Browns had already begun circling the drain by that time in 2004.

2004 AFCC at PIT 41-27 (lost 20-34 earlier that year)

I had to tape the game since it was on Halloween night and I have young kids. Never got around to watch the tape but gathered that the game wasn't pretty. Regardless, the Pats' defense forced a boatload of turnovers in the AFCC game to account for the scoring (and winning) difference.

Here are the two games that I don't have a ready explanation available for the scoring difference:

2003 TEN 38-30 (lost 7-24 the year before)
2003 at DEN 30-26 (lost 16-24 the year before)

I could just say the 2003 team was dramatically better than the 2002 team (and I would be correct) but that is too easy. If I get a chance I'll see if I power up the wayback machine and see if anything jumps out at me.

The point is that in those 2 superbowl years (34-4), there were exactly 2 games out of 38 that a reasonable person could suspect that "cheating" was involved. So the "tainted" superbowl argument just doesn't wash when exposed to the facts.

The 2002 team couldn't stop the run to save it's life! And in 2002 we played the Titans and Eddie George, and Denver's "insert RB here" run offense.
Plus, in 2003, Denver's starter(plummer) and back-up QBs were out with injury. The 3rd string QB played that game.

Adding Rodney Harrison drastically improved the run defense.

 

[upstater1]

I'll answer Pat Kirwan's question directly.

The reason why the Patriots lost the second game to the Dolphins is because the Dolphins were cheating!!!!!!!!!!!

And the NFL said it was fine. NFL's Steve Alic: "That's football!!!!"

 

[patsox23]

2004 AFCC at PIT 41-27 (lost 20-34 earlier that year)

I had to tape the game since it was on Halloween night and I have young kids. Never got around to watch the tape but gathered that the game wasn't pretty. Regardless, the Pats' defense forced a boatload of turnovers in the AFCC game to account for the scoring (and winning) difference.

It's worth noting that in the first game in Pittsburgh, the Patriots were without: Daniel Graham, Matt Light, Ty Law, Deion Branch, Corey Dillon and, I believe, others. The second time they played, only Ty Law was unable to suit up. Think THAT made a difference? I won $100 based on that difference from a stupid Pitt fan who didn't buy my prediction.

 

[Metaphors]

The 2002 team couldn't stop the run to save it's life! And in 2002 we played the Titans and Eddie George, and Denver's "insert RB here" run offense.
Plus, in 2003, Denver's starter(plummer) and back-up QBs were out with injury. The 3rd string QB played that game.

Adding Rodney Harrison drastically improved the run defense.

All true, but doesn't necessarily explain the jump in offensive output (what "cheating" would supposedly allow the Pats to do). It could if the defense scored or gave the offense short field opportunities...my memory is not good enough to recall enough details to say for sure.

 

[upstater1]

All true, but doesn't necessarily explain the jump in offensive output (what "cheating" would supposedly allow the Pats to do). It could if the defense scored or gave the offense short field opportunities...my memory is not good enough to recall enough details to say for sure.

Corey Dillon's absence doesn't explain why the Patriots had a poor offense that day?

I distinctly remember that game when the Pats had to abandon the run completely without Dillon, and Brady was shellacked by Pittsburgh blitzers.

 

[Metaphors]

Corey Dillon's absence doesn't explain why the Patriots had a poor offense that day?

I distinctly remember that game when the Pats had to abandon the run completely without Dillon, and Brady was shellacked by Pittsburgh blitzers.

I was talking about the TEN and DEN games, not the PIT game.

 

[Metaphors]

It's worth noting that in the first game in Pittsburgh, the Patriots were without: Daniel Graham, Matt Light, Ty Law, Deion Branch, Corey Dillon and, I believe, others. The second time they played, only Ty Law was unable to suit up. Think THAT made a difference? I won $100 based on that difference from a stupid Pitt fan who didn't buy my prediction.

Actually a better explanation than what I provided. Consider my post trumped...

 

[RobertWeathers]

As I've stated on other posts, what BB did was against NFL rules and he got punished. What these self-rightous media zealots need to say to themselves is that..

MOST NFL TEAMS PARK A STAFFER IN THE STANDS AND VIDEOTAPE THE OPPOSING BENCH!!!

What BB did was nothing new. Just ask Bill Cowher and Jimmy Johnson.

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

What goes around comes around, my brotha!

First, I'm not your brother. And also, you'd have a leg to stand on had your team not changed the rules forbidding such contact as seen in the video with incessant, unrelenting whining. Your team changed the rules in your favor when you could not compete under the old rules then proceeded to break the very rule you helped establish without impunity. This is far from what the Pats did.

Regardless, feel free to keep whining, champs.*

 

[sarge]

Corey Dillon's absence doesn't explain why the Patriots had a poor offense that day?

I distinctly remember that game when the Pats had to abandon the run completely without Dillon, and Brady was shellacked by Pittsburgh blitzers.

Deion Branch as well.

But this comparison is laughable.

How many times every season do two teams play and the results are completely different.

2003 team was better. That's it.

The oline was better. They had Branch for the whole season. And David Givens came along.

For anyone to believe that the Pats had the defensive signs that caused them to play better would mean the following.

Every team would have had to keep the same sign from previous years (forget about the fact that all teams admit they change there signs every game, some every quarter).

I mean that is just phucking stupid, and it is stupid that people keep acting like they new the defenses called because they had the signs on video, as oposed to the guys who just watched the signs.

Guys, understand this. Nobody with half a freaking brain believes the Pats gained any real advantage.

And I believe most who are saying they do do so out of fear of the fact that there teams can not beat the Pats on the same playing field.

ANd besides, one other thing about the loss to Pittsburg. They just won 21 straight freaking games when they lost to Pitt. GUESS WHAT!!!!!!! They were do a bad game.

 

[BostonBullit]

I believe there are two things driving this whole issue at this point:

1. The rest of the league is a bit scared of the 2007 Patriots. It's been All Pats all offseason and other teams/fans/haters where grasping at the straw that they where a "paper powerhouse". now that they are proving to be more than that people are even more scared. In that regard the thumping they gave SD last weekend may have a downside - now they even MORE scared.

2. As many reasonable people have pointed out tapeing the signals of the opposing D isn't of any use during the game being played and is of little use after that game seeing how the signals are going to change by the time you play the other team again anyway (or they should). There in lies the issue for a lot of people around the league right now - they don't know WTF Belichick is doing with the tapes, they've tried every which way and they still can't figure it out...and that scares them as well. They'll sit there and say stuff like "if it wasn't worth anything then HE WOULDN'T DO IT" and then in the next breath scoff at the notion that the "smartest coach in football" got caught so easily, but then when you ask how he's getting an advantage from the tapes they can't give you an answer. So they're convinced he's getting an advantage from them, then they make fun of him, then they admit that under their own arguement he's smarter than they are. then they get even madder at him

 

[ayjackson]

"where the hell was that damn camera last January?"

In Polian's suite, pointed at our sideline.

 

[checkedout]

good post. thanks!