Pats Fans For Truth Fact Sheet (collect facts) [merged]

[Pats726]

How information gathering is used: http://www.blogtheberkshires.com/sou...1/spygate.html

Excellent work!!

This link doesn't work...just to let you know...

 

[upstater1]

Wouldn't you guys rather talk about the upcoming season? What's the matter with you all?

Sheesh.

No. Obviously not. The upcoming season is many months away.

Stop acting like a spoiled brat, and if you have nothing to contribute to this thread, just grow up and go start your own thread.

 

[richpats]

No. Obviously not. The upcoming season is many months away.

Stop acting like a spoiled brat, and if you have nothing to contribute to this thread, just grow up and go start your own thread.

You should throw in some name-calling when you present your information to the media, I'm sure they will get the message then. And I already contributed what would work best for you, if you choose to ignore the obvious, that's your problem.

Funny how the name-caller is telling someone to "grow up" - PRICELESS!

 

[Clonamery]

You should throw in some name-calling when you present your information to the media, I'm sure they will get the message then. And I already contributed what would work best for you, if you choose to ignore the obvious, that's your problem.

Funny how the name-caller is telling someone to "grow up" - PRICELESS!

Are you one of them "Homers" I keep hearing about?

 

[Pats726]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=sando_mike&id=3035449
This is a Mike Sando article about QB coach communications and how some teams seem to get around that. What is interesting is that this is so much WORSE than spygate and yet nothing at all has been done.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=green_jeremy&id=3051500
Also a story by Jeremy Green about why spying is NOT needed...
Let's get away from the squabbling and get positive with this thread...adding links and ideas. If those fans would rather talk about the offseason and acquisitions, that is fine as there are many threads about that. I do think it unfair for those who don't like the idea of what some are doing to continually enter into things.
I wonder if anyone knows Bruce from Boston Sports Media Watch as he might have some ideas and what/how things could be done. Just a thought as to where some local help might be found.

 

[richpats]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=sando_mike&id=3035449
This is a Mike Sando article about QB coach communications and how some teams seem to get around that. What is interesting is that this is so much WORSE than spygate and yet nothing at all has been done.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=green_jeremy&id=3051500
Also a story by Jeremy Green about why spying is NOT needed...
Let's get away from the squabbling and get positive with this thread...adding links and ideas. If those fans would rather talk about the offseason and acquisitions, that is fine as there are many threads about that. I do think it unfair for those who don't like the idea of what some are doing to continually enter into things.
I wonder if anyone knows Bruce from Boston Sports Media Watch as he might have some ideas and what/how things could be done. Just a thought as to where some local help might be found.

Since I've decided to support the cause, I want to make sure ONLY relevant facts and information get into the thread. The first article? Irrelevant because it is your OPINION that the communications issue is worse than Spygate, and well, it has NOTHING to do with sideline videotaping. The second article? It implies that Belichick broke a rule when he didn't need to.

I thought you guys were making a case in favor of Belichick and the Pats, this isn't as "positive" as you hoped. I know I will get flamed for my constructive criticism, because you've already given yourself the excuse to criticize those that aren't "positive" and contributing articles to the cause. So be it.

What you need to be looking for is confirmation that taping was not performed in specific games, not "it didn't matter even if they did", and as I said, there is one guy to ask about that.....

 

[Pats726]

Since I've decided to support the cause, I want to make sure ONLY relevant facts and information get into the thread. The first article? Irrelevant because it is your OPINION that the communications issue is worse than Spygate, and well, it has NOTHING to do with sideline videotaping. The second article? It implies that Belichick broke a rule when he didn't need to.

I thought you guys were making a case in favor of Belichick and the Pats, this isn't as "positive" as you hoped. I know I will get flamed for my constructive criticism, because you've already given yourself the excuse to criticize those that aren't "positive" and contributing articles to the cause. So be it.

What you need to be looking for is confirmation that taping was not performed in specific games, not "it didn't matter even if they did", and as I said, there is one guy to ask about that.....

Who appointed you as the one to say what is relevant or not?? No one voted you for that position...unless I missed the results...As to whether it is is MORE important than video in the grand scheme of things, I thing ANYONE with any knowledge of football would say that it has a greater effect. As to what this thread is about, I guess you have not read all the links or the articles. But that is OK.

 

[upstater1]

You should throw in some name-calling when you present your information to the media, I'm sure they will get the message then. And I already contributed what would work best for you, if you choose to ignore the obvious, that's your problem.

Funny how the name-caller is telling someone to "grow up" - PRICELESS!

YOU CONTRIBUTED SQUAT.

And this morning, this kind of fact based response to Peter King already yielded a change in his article in SI.

But you refuse to acknowledge this.

Instead you hijack the thread with your idiocy. if you don't like being insulted, then grow up.

 

[BPF]

This link doesn't work...just to let you know...

Here are some passages I posted on another link, when it's back up I will post in it's entirety.

When he says defensive coaches he means offensive coaches.

http://www.blogtheberkshires.com/sou...1/spygate.html
Some passages below....

Quote:
These tapes are usually never seen by any of the players, according to my source. Unless he asked, Tom Brady wouldn't see the "married" tape. And it wouldn't help him much anyway. Brady generally has between 5 and 8 seconds when he steps to the line of scrimmage to read the defense and, if need be, change the play call. There is no time to look over at the opposing teams' sideline, find the defensive coach and try to see what he signals. Besides, Brady has to memorize all his teams plays and study the defensive formations he expects to see from the other side. He simply hasn't got time to process what a team's defensive coordinator is signaling.

So who does see these tapes? The defensive coaches and maybe the head coach. The signals would be cataloged and put away for the next time the two teams met. It isn't actually about knowing in advance what a team will do. It's more about using the tape as a tool to determine what a teams' tendencies are. Do they blitz on second and long? Do they put in a difference defensive package at midfield then when they are at their own 20? It's not really about knowing, during a game, what a defensive unti will try. It's about trying to guess what they will do in an upcoming game. And to be honest? The Patriots still film, legally, their opponents from the press box and try to read the signals by the defensive coordinator.
But wait. The Commissioner's office levied some heavy fines after learning of this. Doesn't that indicate that the NFL is very serious about taping violations?

Yes. See the aforementioned "hefty fine" paragraphs. My sense, too, is that while not a lot of other teams were trying this, the number was on the rise. Goodell wasn't just sending a message to the Patriots. He was sending a message to the NFL. As in "Don't screw around with this. I mean it."

So there you go. The amount of cheating involved here appears minimal. But I doubt if Patriot-haters will believe that. So be it. See you next Sunday.

 

[richpats]

Instead you hijack the thread with your idiocy. if you don't like being insulted, then grow up.

So you are implying that people who don't like being insulted are not grown up? Hmmm. I'm starting to get the picture with you.

 

[richpats]

Who appointed you as the one to say what is relevant or not?? No one voted you for that position...unless I missed the results...As to whether it is is MORE important than video in the grand scheme of things, I thing ANYONE with any knowledge of football would say that it has a greater effect. As to what this thread is about, I guess you have not read all the links or the articles. But that is OK.

No one voted YOU for any position either....unless I missed the results

You "thing" ANYONE with any knowledge would think it has a greater effect is an OPINION, actually it's 2 opinions.

Whatever "cause" this thread is supposed to support looks more like a grand exercise in finger-pointing and excuse-making. But that is OK

 

[CrazyDave]

Wouldn't you guys rather talk about the upcoming season? What's the matter with you all?

Sheesh.

This is not the "talk about the upcoming season " thread.

weenie

 

[richpats]

This is not the "talk about the upcoming season " thread.

weenie

Another namecaller, priceless

 

[ivanvamp]

YOU CONTRIBUTED SQUAT.

And this morning, this kind of fact based response to Peter King already yielded a change in his article in SI.

But you refuse to acknowledge this.

Instead you hijack the thread with your idiocy. if you don't like being insulted, then grow up.

The original article read: "I spoke over the weekend with former Ram coach Mike Martz about the allegation that the Patriots videotaped St. Louis' walk through practice the day before Super Bowl XXXVI. He says the Ram practice
that day consisted of the offense running its red-zone plays at half speed. The Rams, as it turned out, struggled mightily inside the 20 in that game. I hear that Martz and other Ram people are privately talking much tougher, and I think it's possible, if there is tape of the walk through, the Rams may press the league to have the outcome of the game overturned."

The revised article reads: "Over the weekend, I spoke with former Rams coach Mike Martz about the allegation that the Patriots videotaped St. Louis' walk through practice the day before Super Bowl XXXVI. He says the Ram practice that day consisted of the offense running its red-zone plays at half speed. I hear that Martz and other Ram people are privately talking much tougher, and I think it's possible, if there is tape of the walk through, the Rams may press the league to have the outcome of the game overturned."

Now, doesn't King have the moral obligation to explain this revision? Something like, "You know, I originally thought that Martz' complaint had some validity because the Rams struggled mightily in the red zone, but it was pointed out to me that the Rams were actually 1 for 1 in the red zone, scoring a TD on their only trip there. So after further review, even if the Pats *did* film the Rams' walkthrough of their red zone offense, it obviously had zero impact on the outcome of the game."

Wouldn't that show integrity, instead of just quietly making an alteration but keeping the same basic premise (which the alteration completely discredits)??

 

[BPF]

No one voted YOU for any position either....unless I missed the results

You "thing" ANYONE with any knowledge would think it has a greater effect is an OPINION, actually it's 2 opinions.

Whatever "cause" this thread is supposed to support looks more like a grand exercise in finger-pointing and excuse-making. But that is OK

Pats726,
"Arguing with a fool proves there are two."

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Just got in from work, gentlemen...

Sieglo, I originally thought there was some value in being upfront about our agenda, but after sleeping on it and seeing your comment, I agree as well. It's just plain more professional sounding. "Sports Fans for Media Responsibility," I believe it was. Good on ya. Maybe we should contain it to "Football fans for..." so we aren't tempted to talk about clemens etc etc.

To any and all who have posted a link, once again, my sincere thanks. To those dedicated to determining which links are best, your efforts are appreciated as well.

To any who believe that this effort is meant to be a "magic bullet," it is not. It is the beginning of a venture that should channel a lot of energy that's gone unchanneled thus far constructively. So, the poster who stated that it may make some of us feel better is half-right.

The effort is designed to have the best possible shot at having some effect on the debate. So to those who call it hopeless, I can only say it is a little less hopeless than if we did not invest our best efforts.

You may believe this effort makes no sense whatsoever and will result in utter failure.

I have no reason to share that belief, and frankly, have no desire to engage those who would like to discuss how certain failure is.

The only way we are certain to fail is by not attempting.

While it would be a pipedream to imagine a major impact which changes the flow of history, we can have an impact proportionate to our collective contributions. It will, however, require some cohesiveness among ourselves to have a shot at that impact.

I'm going to be organizing the links proffered as best I can in the next few days. Some others here have also committed themselves to taking some time with this project. Please PM me if you would like to go beyond contributing links in this endeavor.

Since it's a discussion forum, nobody can ban the habit of bickering and taunting -- that's basic to the internet. But to the extent that we can emphasize "signal" over "noise" here, we'll increase our chances of success.

That means each of us contributing what "signal" we can: a link, and the explanations people have given as to why they consider each link important.

By the way, to the poster who mentioned a "Q & A" sheet as well, I agree. Good idea.

Once more -- thank you to everyone who is taking this effort seriously. I'd politely request that we not spend time on this thread with discussions of certain failure, etc. Obviously, there's no mandating it, but we're trying to get something done here, so I do request that courtesy.

To everyone who's involved in making this work, at whatever level, and to everyone who is willing to contribute links, work, time, etc: I salute you. It's been pointed out that we do this with no guaranty of success. We're all grownups, and knew that going in. But it good to see we all understand that we can as easily attempt to have an impact, as argue incessantly about minutiae.

Thanks to all, and above all... keep it coming!

PFnV

 

[richpats]

Pats726,
"Arguing with a fool proves there are two."

BPF, you followed up a worthy contribution with name-calling. So is that what everyone does when someone else disagrees? This thread and the behavior of a lot of fans in it embarrass me as a Pats fan. Some disguise idiocy with undying loyalty to Belichick.

You had mentioned that coaches could use a sideline videotape to figure out when teams have a tendency to blitz and so forth - now why the hell can't they just use normal game film for that?! And why tape signals on the sideline if the Pats are already filming them legally?

Instead of Belichick coming off as a cheater, he comes off more like a buffoon for breaking a rule that he didn't need to, to obtain information that he already had LEGALLY.....unless someone can provide a different explanation, I'm all ears.

 

[upstater1]

So you are implying that people who don't like being insulted are not grown up? Hmmm. I'm starting to get the picture with you.

Is it too much to ask for courtesy for PatinVa's request? Is basic courtesy too much for you?

 

[richpats]

And this morning, this kind of fact based response to Peter King already yielded a change in his article in SI.

But you refuse to acknowledge this.

You contributed a stat from a football game. He can't argue that. King writes a long weekly column, I doubt the guy fact-checks. You can't contribute any more information about videotaping than is already out there.

 

[richpats]

Is it too much to ask for courtesy for PatinVa's request? Is basic courtesy too much for you?

I provided a courteous response that will shed light on the issue for Pats fans, Pats haters and everyone interested in the story: talk to Belichick, get every last detail out of him. Then the debates and speculation will end. I'm curious myself, but I know we'll never hear a peep out of him, so I am moving on.