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

[Rob0729]

I'm surprised this thread is still going. Spygate was 5 years ago. Let it go.

The people who make the argument about the Pats not winning since Spygate are just haters who would come up with another argument if the Pats won a month ago. Who makes this argument the most? Jets' fans. So there you have it.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I'm surprised this thread is still going. Spygate was 5 years ago. Let it go.

The people who make the argument about the Pats not winning since Spygate are just haters who would come up with another argument if the Pats won a month ago. Who makes this argument the most? Jets' fans. So there you have it.

Its so dumb. In the two years prior to Spygate the Pats didn't make it to the SB. In the 5 years since Spygate they, the Giants and the Steelers are the only teams to have appeared in the SB twice.

 

[MassPats38]

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.

I agree. It's analogous to the crime/enforcement or crime/punishment discussion that goes on in criminal law every day. It doesn't matter that a law is not enforced or the punishment is too harsh. A rule is a rule and a law is a law. What happens when you break a rule or law is not in your control as others decide that. Individuals decide whether their actions cross the line of illegality.

After winning three rings, the Pats were targets and plenty of people in the NFL were sick of seeing them in championship games. Under those circumstances, you keep your organization squeaky clean. BB didn't do that, and gave others the opportunity to punish the team. He was wrong to do so. His decision will haunt the team until the Pats are no longer relevant.

There is no other coach I would want with the Pats over BB, but he screwed up with Spygate. The cheating/technical rule violation debate will never end because nobody involved has described the practice in gory detail. As fans, we will say the practice is routine and was not a competitive advantage, but haters/opponents will counter with "if the practice did not offer a competitive advantage, then why break a rule to do it?" BB's 'hubris' is not an answer that resonates with NFL fans generally.

 

[upstater1]

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.

The NFL's entire attitude toward taping was a shrug. Remember the NFL's Steve Alic responding to the Dolphins stealing Patriots' signals off an audiotape? According to the letter of the law, that was funky too. But Alic said, "That's football." Basically the NFL for years had been saying this is just gamesmanship, and beyond that, the rule itself said that film could not be used during the game.

You think the NFL has just issued one memo in the past that is hasn't put teeth into? My guess is that the NFL does this regularly.

Finally, I'll make the point that when the whole deal first came up, most people were calling on the Patriots to lose a 3rd or 4th rounder, and a small fine, just like the Broncos did for a much worse violation (I mean, come on! Violating the salary cap is 100x worse than filming signals from an illegal area) and it was only MUCH later that the media received signals from the NFL office that it would take this issue and ramp it up. That's when you heard calls for first rounders, etc., and suspensions.

I remember this like it was yesterday.

When the news came out first, everyone downplayed it. It was the penalties themselves that turned it into a huge story. Prior to that, people thought it was minor, and at the very least, no more serious than what the Broncos did.

 

[upstater1]

I agree. It's analogous to the crime/enforcement or crime/punishment discussion that goes on in criminal law every day. It doesn't matter that a law is not enforced or the punishment is too harsh. A rule is a rule and a law is a law. What happens when you break a rule or law is not in your control as others decide that. Individuals decide whether their actions cross the line of illegality.

After winning three rings, the Pats were targets and plenty of people in the NFL were sick of seeing them in championship games. Under those circumstances, you keep your organization squeaky clean. BB didn't do that, and gave others the opportunity to punish the team. He was wrong to do so. His decision will haunt the team until the Pats are no longer relevant.

There is no other coach I would want with the Pats over BB, but he screwed up with Spygate. The cheating/technical rule violation debate will never end because nobody involved has described the practice in gory detail. As fans, we will say the practice is routine and was not a competitive advantage, but haters/opponents will counter with "if the practice did not offer a competitive advantage, then why break a rule to do it?" BB's 'hubris' is not an answer that resonates with NFL fans generally.

Sheesh!!!!! Really?

It was of benefit!!! Everyone knows that. But here we go again with people not understanding what occurred. It was illegal to film from the sidelines!! If Belichick wanted he could have made the same exact film from the stands, and it would have been legal. Come on people, get with it!!!

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The NFL's entire attitude toward taping was a shrug. Remember the NFL's Steve Alic responding to the Dolphins stealing Patriots' signals off an audiotape? According to the letter of the law, that was funky too. But Alic said, "That's football." Basically the NFL for years had been saying this is just gamesmanship, and beyond that, the rule itself said that film could not be used during the game.

You think the NFL has just issued one memo in the past that is hasn't put teeth into? My guess is that the NFL does this regularly.

Finally, I'll make the point that when the whole deal first came up, most people were calling on the Patriots to lose a 3rd or 4th rounder, and a small fine, just like the Broncos did for a much worse violation (I mean, come on! Violating the salary cap is 100x worse than filming signals from an illegal area) and it was only MUCH later that the media received signals from the NFL office that it would take this issue and ramp it up. That's when you heard calls for first rounders, etc., and suspensions.

I remember this like it was yesterday.

When the news came out first, everyone downplayed it. It was the penalties themselves that turned it into a huge story. Prior to that, people thought it was minor, and at the very least, no more serious than what the Broncos did.

We all remember it like it was yesterday.

I have zero argument with anything you say, but none of it changes what I wrote nor does it obviate my point, which I won't repeat since I've already stated it as clearly and succinctly as I can in my original and brief reply to you.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Sheesh!!!!! Really?

It was of benefit!!! Everyone knows that. But here we go again with people not understanding what occurred. It was illegal to film from the sidelines!! If Belichick wanted he could have made the same exact film from the stands, and it would have been legal. Come on people, get with it!!!

We all know that. Patriots fans can recite that chapter and verse, backwards and forwards until the cows come home.

The fact that the rule is stupid or ill-conceived or poorly drawn doesn't change what happened and that BB shouldn't have done it.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I agree. It's analogous to the crime/enforcement or crime/punishment discussion that goes on in criminal law every day. It doesn't matter that a law is not enforced or the punishment is too harsh. A rule is a rule and a law is a law. What happens when you break a rule or law is not in your control as others decide that. Individuals decide whether their actions cross the line of illegality.

After winning three rings, the Pats were targets and plenty of people in the NFL were sick of seeing them in championship games. Under those circumstances, you keep your organization squeaky clean. BB didn't do that, and gave others the opportunity to punish the team. He was wrong to do so. His decision will haunt the team until the Pats are no longer relevant.

There is no other coach I would want with the Pats over BB, but he screwed up with Spygate. The cheating/technical rule violation debate will never end because nobody involved has described the practice in gory detail. As fans, we will say the practice is routine and was not a competitive advantage, but haters/opponents will counter with "if the practice did not offer a competitive advantage, then why break a rule to do it?" BB's 'hubris' is not an answer that resonates with NFL fans generally.

I think that's pretty much the end of the story.

A great NFL Head Coach (maybe the greatest ever to walk the sidelines) made one really bad decision.

For me it changes nothing in my opinion of Belichick or of the Patriots' teams of his era, other than that I wish he hadn't done it. I've made too many bad decisions in my own life to judge someone else for his mistake.

For haters, it changes everything and there's nothing we can do about that, however many pages of exculpatory and explanatory posts we write.

I'm done with this.

 

[Dutchmaster617]

They were playing the 06 AFCCG on NFL network earlier, we had a much better D and a much younger/healthier Brady and still couldn't hold on to a lead or win the title.

Don't think Bill and Brady will ever win again, I should have enjoyed that 4 year run more than I did, never thought this would happen.

 

[MassPats38]

Sheesh!!!!! Really?

It was of benefit!!! Everyone knows that. But here we go again with people not understanding what occurred. It was illegal to film from the sidelines!! If Belichick wanted he could have made the same exact film from the stands, and it would have been legal. Come on people, get with it!!!

Are you referring to me, or other fans? Or are you claiming to know what the internal practices of the Pats were at the time, contrary to everything I have seen published on the subject, that if the subject of a third party/objective investigation might put this issue to bed? I was stating what Pats haters are stating, not my opinion, so don't direct that at me if your post was going for a condescending tone. I am well aware of the rule and permitted behavior. That was not the point of my post nor of the post to which I was replying.

A rule was broken. That point is not debatable, despite your passion for the subject of competitive advantage. I personally think the "competitive advantage" argument is stupid, but the conduct in violating the rule opens the Pats up to those claims from fans and players of other teams. My point was when you are not well loved by countless others, which happens when you win most of the time, you do not engage in conduct that opens you up to criticism and scorn. The Pats were not the darlings of the NFL in 2006 and 2007, which means BB screwed up by engaging in conduct that opened the team up to scrutiny, whether deserved or not. That proposition is similarly not subject to reasonable debate.

If you are expecting a "full and fair" hearing and an opportunity to clear your name in the court of public opinion, which this issue now becomes, you have probably not been watching much politics or the news. There are people out there and Websites that adamantly contend that 9/11 was inflicted by our own military in an effort to garner support for a war, despite science, media coverage and eye witness reports of the event in a major city. If you are expecting a more open-minded approach to the benefit of the Pats from opposing fans and players who are likely not rocket scientists themselves, I regret that I cannot join you in fantasy land.

 

[RobertWeathers]

They were playing the 06 AFCCG on NFL network earlier, we had a much better D and a much younger/healthier Brady and still couldn't hold on to a lead or win the title.

Don't think Bill and Brady will ever win again, I should have enjoyed that 4 year run more than I did, never thought this would happen.

You're right. The fact that Brady has 2-3 more years of top-end production, BB still running things, $20m under the cap and two 1s, two 2nd and declining AFC give us no hope.

My god.

 

[upstater1]

Are you referring to me, or other fans? Or are you claiming to know what the internal practices of the Pats were at the time, contrary to everything I have seen published on the subject, that if the subject of a third party/objective investigation might put this issue to bed? I was stating what Pats haters are stating, not my opinion, so don't direct that at me if your post was going for a condescending tone. I am well aware of the rule and permitted behavior. That was not the point of my post nor of the post to which I was replying.

A rule was broken. That point is not debatable, despite your passion for the subject of competitive advantage. I personally think the "competitive advantage" argument is stupid, but the conduct in violating the rule opens the Pats up to those claims from fans and players of other teams. My point was when you are not well loved by countless others, which happens when you win most of the time, you do not engage in conduct that opens you up to criticism and scorn. The Pats were not the darlings of the NFL in 2006 and 2007, which means BB screwed up by engaging in conduct that opened the team up to scrutiny, whether deserved or not. That proposition is similarly not subject to reasonable debate.

If you are expecting a "full and fair" hearing and an opportunity to clear your name in the court of public opinion, which this issue now becomes, you have probably not been watching much politics or the news. There are people out there and Websites that adamantly contend that 9/11 was inflicted by our own military in an effort to garner support for a war, despite science, media coverage and eye witness reports of the event in a major city. If you are expecting a more open-minded approach to the benefit of the Pats from opposing fans and players who are likely not rocket scientists themselves, I regret that I cannot join you in fantasy land.

You used an argument about competitive advantage.
You brought it up.
Also, plenty of people have remarked on what the advantages of stealing signals are.

The whole point I was making is quite simple: whether there is a competitive advantage or not is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Why? Because stealing signals is and always has been legal.

 

[upstater1]

We all know that. Patriots fans can recite that chapter and verse, backwards and forwards until the cows come home.

The fact that the rule is stupid or ill-conceived or poorly drawn doesn't change what happened and that BB shouldn't have done it.

Apparently, we don't all know it.

And like I said, now for the 3rd time, I can shoot down anyone who makes the point about Spygate in 2 sentences. Quickly, concisely. There is no retort to the fact that we didn't have signals in 2 of the Super Bowls we played.

 

[upstater1]

We all remember it like it was yesterday.

I have zero argument with anything you say, but none of it changes what I wrote nor does it obviate my point, which I won't repeat since I've already stated it as clearly and succinctly as I can in my original and brief reply to you.

I honestly can't understand your point. If someone says the Patriots can't win the Super Bowl without stealing signals, I say, the Patriots already won the Super Bowl without stealing signals.

What's so difficult about that?

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

A rule was broken.

Actually, I'm not 100% certain that you would find the "memo" in the stated rule book as I recall the rules says you can't make use of the footage during the game (implying it can be used after the game).

Maybe one day (when BB retires and IF he feels like talking about it, which seems unlikely) we'll get the full story.

But, didn't BB get the Coach of the Year award in 2007? Seems so odd how that could happen if the crime was so outrageous.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I actually enjoy watching clueless fans humiliate themselves with the "Patriots can't win without cheating..." argument

These dolts cite their "proof" that the Patriots can't win as the facts that they had the first and only 16-0 season and came within a few points of winning two additional Super Bowls.

Other organizations would be thankful to "can't win" like that.

 

[MassPats38]

You used an argument about competitive advantage.
You brought it up.
Also, plenty of people have remarked on what the advantages of stealing signals are.

The whole point I was making is quite simple: whether there is a competitive advantage or not is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Why? Because stealing signals is and always has been legal.

It was brought up with reference to what non-pats fans claim. If you can find where I say the reasonable position reflects that the practice would have that result, feel free to quote me. The fact a phrase appears is not tantamount to arguing for or against the concept. If you want to discuss the concept, fine, but don't try to argue I took a position contrary to your own, or that I am struggling to grasp the concept with some 'sheesh' or "get with the game" reply. It is not that difficult a concept to grasp. If you spent a great deal of time coming to your conclusion, I salute you for your individual effort but you will find no debate here. I have choked down enough of the Spygate discussion, and I, and PatsFan74, both believe claims of competitive advantage as a result of the practice of videotaping are garbage. Nobody appears to be unclear on that, so you appear to be looking for a debate when nobody is arguing against you.

The point PatsFan74 and I were making has nothing to do with the reality of the practice in violation of rules. The fact that a police officer lets people travel 15 miles over the speed limit at a specific location and then hands you a ticket for traveling 5 miles over does not mean you did not break the law. If he hates your guts and does so, it means you are given less leeway in terms of his exercise of discretion. That exercise of discretion is not a defense to the infraction in the legal sense - you still broke the law, just as everybody else broke the law. In a similar way, the Pats and BB were not well liked generally and broke the rules. The mistake was breaking the rules in the first place when teams and their fans want you to fail and are looking for ammunition to help you fail.

The fact fans and the media still bring it up is because the NFL did not do much beyond the sanction to clarify what happened and do not appear quick to the gun to shut down claims subsequently arising, however ridiculous those claims may be. There were great articles written on NFL practices in deception, but nobody outside this fan base cares about the facts when they can simply fire unfavorable insults and accusations. If you believe the facts pertaining to competitive advantage have anything to do with this issue now, then you have not been reading many articles mentioning Spygate post-2007. This violation is the reason we still hear unfounded and illogical claims about the Pats, and why you will never change the unalterably closed minds of the individuals firing shots at the Pats. The simple reason for these claims is logic has nothing to do with the contentions. The declarants want the emotional response, whether good or bad. Every time you bristle at a ridiculous claim and attempt to argue against the proposition with logic, you are playing right into the desired response. If you are hoping to resolve the debate, with the reasonable outcome being teams and their fans admit that they lost to the Pats because they were simply not as good, keep on fighting the good fight because you can expect some sizable resistance to that end state.

 

[Joker]

If you are hoping to resolve the debate, with the reasonable outcome being teams and their fans admit that they lost to the Pats because they were simply not as good, keep on fighting the good fight because you can expect some sizable resistance to that end state.

Of course there will be this resistance as ANYBODY with eyes can see these past four years....but why????...can it possibly be that this EXACT response has been cultivated and generated and regenerated by one Roger Goodell? THIS is the lynchpin....every single action and omission by this (who I consider a white collar criminal) "Commissioner" fairly screams conspiracy. Name one thing he has done by public action to debunk, assuage or educate the NFL fanbase as literally metric tons of misinformation and outright lies continue to gush forth like a river of bile, directly impacting the Patriots franchise.Goodell KNOWS what he has wrought...if he doesn't then he is easily the most NAIVE person ever born (what person drawing breath would EVER think THAT?)...yet his silence echoes like a deafening roar.

Do you realize that a preponderance of the NY Jet fanbase BELIEVES Goodell is in the pocket of Robert Kraft? THIS is F-A-C-T. The utter ridiculousness of this group think staggers my sense of reality.This idea has its genesis in NY, from league headquarters, as does editing of Goodell's WIKI bio to reflect the LIE that he was first a league employee for a year, THEN a Jet employee, and THEN back as a league employee, when the verifiable truth is the original entry was the only REAL truth to the matter...Jet employee---->NFL offices. Why the edit and WHO is responsible??? It tracks back to NFL headquarters. So too the planted story that young Roger was a RAVENS fan because his daddy was in the US senate....jeezus krist ,he was a three sport star in NY with a family box for all Jet home games his entire teenaged life.

THIS will always be the current that Pats fans are swimming upstream against, and the person responsible for opening the floodgates is one Mr. Roger Goodell. I just hope and pray he makes an error in judgement in response to this new scandal, as he sits mute watching the media savage the Patriots AGAIN.... tying the two stories together day after day ,week after week.

 

[Christopher Patriot]

What makes me sick, and I can't for the life of me understand what runs thru peoples minds, is the comments about this bounty hunt thing stemming almost all the way back to Williams entrance in the league.
People and players comment this isn't as bad as spygate.
Are you effing kidding me the Patriots place a camera a little closer to the field then everybody else and people want Belichick hung, Williams purposely and maliciously advocated the injuring of human beings not o man you laid him out he's hurting, no a cart hit would advocate a concussion hit a cheap low shot, just disgusting that players and fans are that backward minded.
Can anyone make sense of this?
Also if they don't at least get as penalized as the Patriots did for having a camera I'm going to be absolutely disgusted and think alot less than I already do of the state of our great game.

 

[PatsSox363804]

What makes me sick, and I can't for the life of me understand what runs thru peoples minds, is the comments about this bounty hunt thing stemming almost all the way back to Williams entrance in the league.
People and players comment this isn't as bad as spygate.
Are you effing kidding me the Patriots place a camera a little closer to the field then everybody else and people want Belichick hung, Williams purposely and maliciously advocated the injuring of human beings not o man you laid him out he's hurting, no a cart hit would advocate a concussion hit a cheap low shot, just disgusting that players and fans are that backward minded.
Can anyone make sense of this?
Also if they don't at least get as penalized as the Patriots did for having a camera I'm going to be absolutely disgusted and think alot less than I already do of the state of our great game.

Players don't know what their coaches are doing to gain an edge, they do k ow about bounty systems and possibly play in them so it seems more normal. If this has taught me anything it's that players don't know how to keep their mouths shut but coaches do. Hell Gibbs denied knowing about this in DC which is likely crap and the Saints defensive line coach denied knowledge which apparently makes him and Sharper the only blind ones on the team.