The Pats haven't won since spygate: setting the record straight

[tuckeverlasting]

Not quite correct. It was years before Watergate, January 12, 1969. Watergate began with the break-in in June of '72, so it was actually at least 3 and 1/2 years before Watergate. Not trying to be picky, but 3 and 1/2 years counts in this derby, at least to me. Think of it this way: the Jets haven't won a SB since 7 months before we landed a man on the moon.

no human being, in the history of the world, alive OR DEAD, has ever witnessed a chargers sb victory.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since the offense became better than the defense. The defense we had 2001-2004 has not been replicated to this date. Not blaming anyone for that ... it is what it is IMO.

 

[PatsSox363804]

Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since the offense became better than the defense. The defense we had 2001-2004 has not been replicated to this date. Not blaming anyone for that ... it is what it is IMO.

I've never received a good answer from a Pats hater that thinks all of our success was due to the cameras when I say "well what happened in 02, 05, and 06?"

 

[Ring 6]

I've never received a good answer from a Pats hater that thinks all of our success was due to the cameras when I say "well what happened in 02, 05, and 06?"

The silliness of their argument doesn't extend to cameras guaranteed SBs, they are only saying the Patriots wouldn't have won them without cameras. Of course its a make believe argument so while it can neither be proven or disproven, it requires a defense, leading to the guilty until proven innocent application.

 

[upstater1]

Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since the offense became better than the defense. The defense we had 2001-2004 has not been replicated to this date. Not blaming anyone for that ... it is what it is IMO.

But, again, this defense made it to the Super Bowl twice, and this defense twice performed better in the Super Bowl than the 2003 defense in the win over Carolina. And the Patriots offense has never played as well in a Super Bowl as the 2003 offense. Offense won that football game.

I sum it up this way: you win some, you lose some.

 

[upstater1]

The silliness of their argument doesn't extend to cameras guaranteed SBs, they are only saying the Patriots wouldn't have won them without cameras. Of course its a make believe argument so while it can neither be proven or disproven, it requires a defense, leading to the guilty until proven innocent application.

Why can't it be disproven? I thought spygate was predicated on using gametape to steal signals. Did the Patriots have such gametape in each Super Bowl? No. That can be proven. First, they played the Panthers last 3 seasons earlier, and second, there was an entirely new coaching staff at Carolina between those seasons.

In other words, the Patriots had no gametape on Carolina.

 

[upstater1]

For reasons fully known only to himself and certainly not adequately explained by his "Oops, I misunderstood the memo" excuse, Belichick chose to ignore that directive and to do so in the Lion's Den of the Jets' home stadium against a team now coached by his former Assistant who had left on bad terms.

We just have to accept that and realize that people who want to believe false things of the Pats as a result of the incident are not going to be convinced by fact or reason.

Why are those reasons known only to himself? You assume too much. The memo came out in 2006, and in that season, the Patriots informed the NFL that the Jets were in violation. The NFL vindicated the Jets by saying the Jets had received permission from the Patriots (permission to cheat? That's precious!!) which the Patriots denied giving, and the Jets couldn't name the person that gave them permission.

So, memo comes out in 2006, Jets violate it, the NFL says, "That's football!" and you're wondering what was passing through Belchick's mind?

 

[Jackson 2]

More than 70% of the population was not alive the last time the Jets won a SB

And 100% of the population will be dead the next time they win one.

 

[patriotsdynasty12189]

No, he definitely choked. The game would've been an almost certain win barring a miracle from the Giants. He dropped the ball, he choked.

It was a bad pass stooge.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

The Patriots haven't won a Super Bowl since...

Brady got married
Pluto was declared a non-planet
Saddam Hussein died
Water was discovered on a moon of Saturn
Apple introduced the iPhone
spygate

None of these things had any causative effect, however

 

[Ring 6]

Why can't it be disproven? I thought spygate was predicated on using gametape to steal signals. Did the Patriots have such gametape in each Super Bowl? No. That can be proven. First, they played the Panthers last 3 seasons earlier, and second, there was an entirely new coaching staff at Carolina between those seasons.

In other words, the Patriots had no gametape on Carolina.

You are using logic against stupidity. No doubt the argument turns into they wouldn't have beaten Pttsburgh without cheating, or Indy, or Tenn, yada yada yada.
I'm not saying you arent right, Im saying its futile.

 

[Ring 6]

It was a bad pass stooge.

While he is a stooge, it wasn't a bad pass.

 

[Koma]

I've never received a good answer from a Pats hater that thinks all of our success was due to the cameras when I say "well what happened in 02, 05, and 06?"

You can throw the 00 season into that mix. The Patriots went 5-11 using secret tactics that the haters believe guarantees victory.

 

[Joker]

The Pats haven't won since spygate...OH MY GOD!!!!...THAT PROVES IT!!!!!!!!

Hey...wait a minute....28 NFL teams haven't won since spygate.....many of these teams haven't won since Rex Ryan's nanny had to have his lips forcibly removed from her toes when he was a toddler.

Let's set the record straight...this thread is PROOF that aliens walk amongst us...

 

[ivanvamp]

Why are those reasons known only to himself? You assume too much. The memo came out in 2006, and in that season, the Patriots informed the NFL that the Jets were in violation. The NFL vindicated the Jets by saying the Jets had received permission from the Patriots (permission to cheat? That's precious!!) which the Patriots denied giving, and the Jets couldn't name the person that gave them permission.

So, memo comes out in 2006, Jets violate it, the NFL says, "That's football!" and you're wondering what was passing through Belchick's mind?

From (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3151217) - Dec 7, 2007...

"HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. -- The spy games between the New York Jets and New England Patriots began last season.

The Jets were caught videotaping at Gillette Stadium last season and the Patriots had that New York employee removed from the area, according to published reports Wednesday. Jets coach Eric Mangini said his team received permission to film behind both end zones during the playoff game in January.

"We taped the game is what we taped, and we taped end-zone copy of the game, and we tape a double-end zone, which is standard operating procedure for us," Mangini said Wednesday. "We request that every single road game, and it's usually granted if physically it's possible. And when people request it from us, we do the same thing: We grant it." ....

"This is just the latest in the long-running rivalry between the teams. After helping Belichick and the Patriots win three Super Bowls as a defensive assistant, Mangini left to become coach of the Jets. The relationship between the two has been frosty since.

Things got even chillier after a Patriots video assistant was caught taping from the sidelines during their game against the Jets in Week 1, a move some speculated fueled New England's drive to perfection. The NFL punished the Patriots by taking away their first-round draft pick, fined them $250,000 and fined Belichick another $500,000.

A league rule prohibits teams from using a video camera on the sidelines for any purpose. In the Jets' case, they were filming from the end zone. The Jets film from both end zones during practice, a common procedure used by NFL teams. ....

"Mangini was unsure how many teams have asked for similar permission from New York but said the Jets have granted it to those that have. He also said the Jets have not been turned down by any teams this season.

"It's usually just a function of whether there's a location that we can do it from or not," he said. "It's a pretty common courtesy.""
- - - - -
And from (http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/12/videotaping_rul.html):

"In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "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."
- - - - -

So there you go. On Sept 6, 2006, the memo which supposedly clarified the league rule, came out, stating that videotaping of any type...is prohibited...at any location accessible to club staff members during the game.

On Jan 7, 2007, in a playoff game, the Jets are taping the Patriots. Apparently the Patriots don't like it and have the videographer removed. But the Jets are clearly not punished by the league for it. In fact, Mangini's defense is: it's a very common thing that teams do.

On Sept 9, 2007, the Patriots are taping the Jets, and they have Estrella thrown out of the game. Moreover, the NFL confiscates Estrella's tapes. (so suddenly the NFL is involved??) According to (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3392047), "Clubs had been reminded of the prohibition against taping sideline signals in a Sept. 6, 2006, directive from league headquarters: "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.'' Ok, so now clubs had been reminded of the memo...I guess the Jets hadn't been reminded of the memo during the playoff game the previous year, eh?

On Sept 13, 2007 - just four days after the taping - Goodell hands down his verdict. From that same espn article I cited in the previous paragraph, "Goodell issues an "emergency" order mandating that New England must turn over all videotape and sign-stealing material in violation of league policy. At the same time, before receiving the requested tapes and materials, Goodell fines Belichick the NFL maximum of $500,000, and the Patriots are ordered to pay $250,000 for spying on an opponent's defensive signals. In addition, Goodell orders the team to give up its first-round draft choice in 2008 if it reaches the playoffs this season, or its second- and third-round picks if it misses the postseason."

So *before even seeing the tapes and knowing what was on them*, Goodell issues the maximum possible fine and penalty. The memo that was sent out in 2006 was the basis for the harsh penalty. Yet that same memo was issued before the Jets were caught taping the Patriots, and *NOTHING* happened to the Jets.

So yeah, if you're Belichick, and you saw that the Jets taped with zero repercussions whatsoever, why in the world would you think that, with no new memo coming out, you would be subject to such a harsh penalty?

EDIT: Or possibly BB knew it was wrong, but had the following mentality: Most (all?) teams do it anyway. If someone doesn't like it, they just kick the guy out and deal with it in-house. That's how they handled it in the game where the Jets were taping the Patriots. But when the Jets were pissed off and caught the Patriots taping, instead of handling it in-house and just kicking the guy out, they complained to the NFL. Kind of like two kids in the sandbox, and there's a rule against throwing sand...Joey tosses sand at Bobby, so Bobby tells Joey to leave. Joey is unhappy because Bobby has never objected to having sand tossed at him before...in fact, it's a pretty common thing in the sandbox. But the next day, when Bobby tosses sand at Joey, Joey gets up and runs to the principal, and has Bobby suspended.

That's pretty much what happened with "spygate".

 

[stcjones]

Unfortunately the only thing that matters is Super Bowl Championships...and last I checked they haven't won one of those since 2004...

I wish that so-called spygate would never be discussed again, but sadly, that will probably never be a reality. After SB 46, a lot of people drummed up the old, "The Pats haven't won a Super Bowl since spygate" line. It died down for a few weeks, but has resurfaced with the Saints' bounty scandal. As much as I'd love for this other scandal to make people forget about spygate, it seems like the first thing people think of when they hear about the bounty scandal is, unfortunately, spygate itself. The penalty for taping opposing signals was so harsh that it has become the standard by which all other penalties are measured.

Within the last day, I have heard no less than 10 people say/write, "The Pats haven't won anything since spygate". I'm sick of it and - if for no other reason than that it's therapeutic for me - want to put that tired old line to bed.

To refresh peoples' memories, though it goes back earlier than that, the formal spygate scandal began when Patriots were caught taping signals against the Jets in the first quarter of the first game of the season in 2007, a 38-14 rout of the New York Jets. From the moment they were caught, they (and this has been confirmed by Goodell's office) did not re-engage in the practice.

The Pats have always held that the taping was for the benefit of long-term study on teams; it's a quicker process for intel than simply watching the opposing sideline and writing it down. In fact, it was such a common practice that when the Pats were doing it during Herm Edwards' tenure as HC of the NYJ, Edwards looked at the camera, waved, and smiled. Several prominent football people like Jimmy Johnson came out and said it was extremely common in the NFL to do what the Patriots did. Again, the benefit was a time-saver to gather information for down the road. It had no benefit for that immediate game (contrary to what many idiots in the media suggested).

So, since the first quarter of the first game of 2007, the Pats have won nothing, right? Well, except for this:

- 64-16 regular season record, an .800 winning percentage. That's the best regular season record in the NFL over the last 5 years.

- 4 division titles. They tied for a 5th but lost out on a low-level tiebreaker in the year that Tom Brady was out for the season. No team has won more division titles over the last 5 years than the Patriots.

- 2 AFC championships. No team has won more than 2 conference championships in the last 5 years. The Giants, of course, won 2 (and 2 SBs), and the Steelers won 2.

- Gone 4-4 in the playoffs over that time. Not the best playoff record in the NFL over that time span, but not many teams have won more than 4 playoff games since 2007.

- Regular season + post season record over the last 5 seasons: 68-20 (.772). No team has come close to that record over that time span.

- Came within about 1:30, and two amazing catches, away from adding two more SB titles. Great plays by the Giants, but both of which were historically great plays. In other words, while the Pats did indeed lose 2 SBs, and didn't put forth their A-level performance in either, they still lost in the last minute when the opponent made unbelievable plays to get down the field. So yes, the Pats lost, but they lost in as close a scenario as possible on both occasions, and on both occasions they came within a foot (or a yard) of completing their own miraculous play that would have won the game in the last seconds themselves.

Bottom line: the whole "they haven't won anything" since spygate is a complete crock. In fact, they've won more than any other franchise in the sport since spygate. Not more super bowls, but more everything elses. Of course we all want the SB titles, but hey, in the past 5 years only 4 teams have won a SB anyway, so lots of great teams (Peyton Manning's Colts, Tony Romo's Cowboys, Philip Rivers' Chargers, Ray Lewis' Ravens, etc.) have failed to win a SB.

 

[Ron Sellers]

Pats haven't won a Super Bowl since they let Earthwind Moreland, Matt Chatham, Tom Ashworth, Brandon Gorin and Adrian Klemm go. Clearly one or all of them must be the reason.

 

[upstater1]

You are using logic against stupidity. No doubt the argument turns into they wouldn't have beaten Pttsburgh without cheating, or Indy, or Tenn, yada yada yada.
I'm not saying you arent right, Im saying its futile.

And that's fine, but of course, the Patriots have gotten to the Super Bowl twice in ensuing years. Even my friends will say stuff about Spygate, but the type of people I hang out with will stop after realizing the logical contradictions in their arguments. As for the idiots, I try not to talk to such people, and would give the same advice to ivanamop. Nonetheless, there are still smart people who hold certain anti-Patriots points-of-view about Spygate. All I'm saying is it's pretty easy to get them to see the errors of their thinking.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Why are those reasons known only to himself? You assume too much. The memo came out in 2006, and in that season, the Patriots informed the NFL that the Jets were in violation. The NFL vindicated the Jets by saying the Jets had received permission from the Patriots (permission to cheat? That's precious!!) which the Patriots denied giving, and the Jets couldn't name the person that gave them permission.

So, memo comes out in 2006, Jets violate it, the NFL says, "That's football!" and you're wondering what was passing through Belchick's mind?

So, you're arguing that he was thinking, "if they got away with it maybe I can too."

I understand and, to be honest, am in sympathetic agreement with the emotion behind that argument, but it doesn't change the fact that it was still a highly risky and foolish thing to do when you are one of the most successful and highly visible teams in the league (and generally resented for that reason) and the Jets were a perennially unsuccessful and less visible franchise.

I agree 100% that the Pats didn't get any real advantage from taping from the sidelines; that makes it all the more dumb that Belichick continued after the memo.

My point still remains that we can spin this a million ways and people aren't going to change their opinion of the Patriots' role in this.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

From (Jets videotaped Patriots last season in Foxborough - NFL - ESPN) - Dec 7, 2007...

"HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. -- The spy games between the New York Jets and New England Patriots began last season.

The Jets were caught videotaping at Gillette Stadium last season and the Patriots had that New York employee removed from the area, according to published reports Wednesday. Jets coach Eric Mangini said his team received permission to film behind both end zones during the playoff game in January.

"We taped the game is what we taped, and we taped end-zone copy of the game, and we tape a double-end zone, which is standard operating procedure for us," Mangini said Wednesday. "We request that every single road game, and it's usually granted if physically it's possible. And when people request it from us, we do the same thing: We grant it." ....

"This is just the latest in the long-running rivalry between the teams. After helping Belichick and the Patriots win three Super Bowls as a defensive assistant, Mangini left to become coach of the Jets. The relationship between the two has been frosty since.

Things got even chillier after a Patriots video assistant was caught taping from the sidelines during their game against the Jets in Week 1, a move some speculated fueled New England's drive to perfection. The NFL punished the Patriots by taking away their first-round draft pick, fined them $250,000 and fined Belichick another $500,000.

A league rule prohibits teams from using a video camera on the sidelines for any purpose. In the Jets' case, they were filming from the end zone. The Jets film from both end zones during practice, a common procedure used by NFL teams. ....

"Mangini was unsure how many teams have asked for similar permission from New York but said the Jets have granted it to those that have. He also said the Jets have not been turned down by any teams this season.

"It's usually just a function of whether there's a location that we can do it from or not," he said. "It's a pretty common courtesy.""
- - - - -
And from (http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/12/videotaping_rul.html):

"In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "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."
- - - - -

So there you go. On Sept 6, 2006, the memo which supposedly clarified the league rule, came out, stating that videotaping of any type...is prohibited...at any location accessible to club staff members during the game.

On Jan 7, 2007, in a playoff game, the Jets are taping the Patriots. Apparently the Patriots don't like it and have the videographer removed. But the Jets are clearly not punished by the league for it. In fact, Mangini's defense is: it's a very common thing that teams do.

On Sept 9, 2007, the Patriots are taping the Jets, and they have Estrella thrown out of the game. Moreover, the NFL confiscates Estrella's tapes. (so suddenly the NFL is involved??) According to (Timeline of events and disclosures during Spygate saga - NFL - ESPN), "Clubs had been reminded of the prohibition against taping sideline signals in a Sept. 6, 2006, directive from league headquarters: "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.'' Ok, so now clubs had been reminded of the memo...I guess the Jets hadn't been reminded of the memo during the playoff game the previous year, eh?

On Sept 13, 2007 - just four days after the taping - Goodell hands down his verdict. From that same espn article I cited in the previous paragraph, "Goodell issues an "emergency" order mandating that New England must turn over all videotape and sign-stealing material in violation of league policy. At the same time, before receiving the requested tapes and materials, Goodell fines Belichick the NFL maximum of $500,000, and the Patriots are ordered to pay $250,000 for spying on an opponent's defensive signals. In addition, Goodell orders the team to give up its first-round draft choice in 2008 if it reaches the playoffs this season, or its second- and third-round picks if it misses the postseason."

So *before even seeing the tapes and knowing what was on them*, Goodell issues the maximum possible fine and penalty. The memo that was sent out in 2006 was the basis for the harsh penalty. Yet that same memo was issued before the Jets were caught taping the Patriots, and *NOTHING* happened to the Jets.

So yeah, if you're Belichick, and you saw that the Jets taped with zero repercussions whatsoever, why in the world would you think that, with no new memo coming out, you would be subject to such a harsh penalty?

EDIT: Or possibly BB knew it was wrong, but had the following mentality: Most (all?) teams do it anyway. If someone doesn't like it, they just kick the guy out and deal with it in-house. That's how they handled it in the game where the Jets were taping the Patriots. But when the Jets were pissed off and caught the Patriots taping, instead of handling it in-house and just kicking the guy out, they complained to the NFL. Kind of like two kids in the sandbox, and there's a rule against throwing sand...Joey tosses sand at Bobby, so Bobby tells Joey to leave. Joey is unhappy because Bobby has never objected to having sand tossed at him before...in fact, it's a pretty common thing in the sandbox. But the next day, when Bobby tosses sand at Joey, Joey gets up and runs to the principal, and has Bobby suspended.

That's pretty much what happened with "spygate".

All of that and $2.50 or so will get you a Fenway Frank during Family Hour at the Ballpark. Please see my, brief, reply to upstater just above. I don't disagree with the sentiment or even most of the logic, but they are disconnected from the reality of how people outside Patriots Nation perceive this.