Tim Fox: Pats removed Jets cameraman from field last season [merged]

[Trot]

Is that official?

Schefter said they were warned this offseason.

That's because Shefter, like a lot of commetators, conveniently neglected to mention that the memo was over a year old, preferring to focus on the fabricated "They did it ONE WEEK after the memo was sent" angle. Total BS.

Nevertheless, they got caught, and were punished--both for their own actions and to send a message to the league. The latter is bs as well, but c'est la vie, as they say.

 

[Mike the Brit]

By the way - I've been thinking and thinking about WHY BB would be so blatant about this and what strategic benefit taking video of the opposing DC offers. As many have pointed out its not for future games, otherwise he wouldn't bother with it in something like the Packers game. Beyond that I still doubt that signals can be interpreted, analyzed and passed along to the QB within a span of 15 seconds.

The only theory I have come up with is that BB actually WANTS opposing coaching staffs to see him doing it to foster their own indecision about plays and disguising signals.

In other words, BB gains a competitive advantage through the shere PSYCHOLOGICAL impact of being seen engaging in this activitiy - whether there's an actual advantage or not.

I'm not sure if others have floated this throey but its the only thing that makes sense to me

I have been thinking too, and I have to say that I am still completely baffled.

This is an interesting theory -- bizarre, yes, but not impossible. Another one that seems just about conceivable is that BB simply didn't pay any attention to the league memo -- perhaps because so many memos come around from the league that he mentally blocks them out.

But since I can't believe that BB is either an idiot or a psychopath (someone who is incapable of recognizing that the rules of society apply to him too) I can't find any other theories that appeal.

 

[BelichickFan]

I have been thinking too, and I have to say that I am still completely baffled.

This is an interesting theory -- bizarre, yes, but not impossible. Another one that seems just about conceivable is that BB simply didn't pay any attention to the league memo -- perhaps because so many memos come around from the league that he mentally blocks them out.

But since I can't believe that BB is either an idiot or a psychopath (someone who is incapable of recognizing that the rules of society apply to him too) I can't find any other theories that appeal.

The only reasonable thing I've heard is he likes to study other coaches' mannerisms. Look at coaches as poker players. Do they give things away ? Do they breathe deeply when calling a big blitz ? If so, even if the signs change the mannerisms don't. That's something you couldn't take notes on but would need film to study.

 

[Mike the Brit]

The only reasonable thing I've heard is he likes to study other coaches' mannerisms. Look at coaches as poker players. Do they give things away ? Do they breathe deeply when calling a big blitz ? If so, even if the signs change the mannerisms don't. That's something you couldn't take notes on but would need film to study.

Wow! Very implausible (an NFL sideline is so unlike a poker table and calling a play isn't like bluffing). But then so is everything else ...

I find it a strange thought that, for all the obsessive exploration and analysis of the Patriots on messageboards and in the press, we'll probably all go to our graves not knowing the reason behind all of this any more than we'll know what it was that led the Patriots to file a grievance against the Jets last season (which was dismissed).

Ah well ...

 

[RayClay]

The only reasonable thing I've heard is he likes to study other coaches' mannerisms. Look at coaches as poker players. Do they give things away ? Do they breathe deeply when calling a big blitz ? If so, even if the signs change the mannerisms don't. That's something you couldn't take notes on but would need film to study.

Makes sense to me. It's called a tell, (House of Games, great Mamet movie).

 

[Keegs]

Re: Jets Videotaped Pats in 2006

Then you had better go find the game tape the Jets made which is going to be impossible to obtain for anybody. If Goodell takes a 1st from the Jets without the actual tape as evidence, then he will have to take 2 more 1sts from the Pats for GB and DET. Wouldn't that be great?

We don't need any retribution or revenge of this nature. We're not WHINERS! They are! The only satisfaction that you should want is seeing the look on Goodell's face when he passes the Lombardi to the Pats next year. I'm living for that moment. Oh, and I want 16-0 to screw Miami and I want Brady to have 50 TDs to screw with Manning. That retribution will be the best. Let's have none of this, "Mr Goodell, Mr Goodell, look what we found. Whaaaa, you're not listening. Whaaaaaaaaaaa..."

All i want is everyone to be punished equally for "cheating".

That sounds fair to me.

My opinion before was that the NFL clearly already had a bias against the pats, and the way they handled this whole situation just makes it more obvious.

 

[Bella*chick]

Well, I think it could be a combo of studying coaches tendencies and psychological impact. I have to think they were getting something out of the tapes because if it was sheerly for psychological purposes, why even film anything, especially if it could get you into trouble. Heck, why even have a tape in the camera?

Sure they all change signals but sometimes they don't. And I bet they recycle stuff too.

 

[LoveDemPats]

Wow! Very implausible (an NFL sideline is so unlike a poker table and calling a play isn't like bluffing). But then so is everything else ...

I find it a strange thought that, for all the obsessive exploration and analysis of the Patriots on messageboards and in the press, we'll probably all go to our graves not knowing the reason behind all of this any more than we'll know what it was that led the Patriots to file a grievance against the Jets last season (which was dismissed).

Ah well ...

I agree. We will never know.

In today's paper, there was a bit about BB and the challenge flag. I found his thinking on this interesting in that all he cares about is whether or not the play is a big play. If it is, he may challenge it, regardless of what the booth says, or whatever people are saying. This seems to show a side of the coach that says, "I am not really that interested in other people's analysis of video, all I really care about is this play and if it is important enough to challege the ruling on the field." He does not come off as a maniacle video analizer who is screaming at the booth over and over "Is it a-go??!!! Is it a-GO??!!" over the decision to throw the red hanky.

All these little things add up.

I believe that the whole thing is probably something really small. Like, you just get as much info as possible, and if something wierd happens during the game, like they throw something that is new and different, you can go back and analize the video tape to see what the sideline did. It is probably something that he would tell an intern to do after about 15 other things were done to correct or analize the event.

 

[thomas144]

I am incidentally annoyed that all threads somehow related to this story (one of the biggest stories in Patriots' history) have been merged into one thread, so I'll try to address various topics here:

1. Maybe it's just me, but I don't care if other teams videotaped opposing coaches.

2. It seems to me that many if not most fans around the league think that the Patriots were fined for stealing signals, not for videotaping. I think Chris Collinsworth managed to support this erroneous view on Inside the NFL last week.

3. I have to think Belichick thought this was just another dumb NFL rule, like the injury report. I don't think he ever thought he would lose half a million of his own money and a first-round draft choice over it.

4. I think Belichick probably thought he could reasonably argue that as long as he (or anyone on the team) wasn't using (i.e. viewing) the tapes during the game it was within the rules. That being the case, one could wonder why he didn't ask for clarification on that. I think it's beyond comprehension that he didn't get the memo. I think he probably thought that it's easier to beg for forgiveness than to get permission.

5. The rule is artificial and silly. Why allow teams to have video crews? Why allow teams to take and use Polaroid photographs during the game? Is this the last market for Polaroid cameras?

6. I believe Goodell was unduly influenced by the New York media. I really think if this had happened in Detroit the commissioner wouldn't have penalized the Patriots so severely.

7. I hope Patriots fans who profess to wanting to "move on" from this are not also continuing to purchase NFL merchandise. I personally was planning to spend the extra money to get the NFL channel on Comcast (now that the weekly replay stuff is not available free on Demand, last I checked) but will not be spending any money on NFL crap (like NFL TV) if I can avoid it.

8. Sorry if I missed some of the points buried in this thread.

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

Re: Tim Fox: Jets had cameraman removed vs. Pats last year

Yeah, it's going back a few years, but Tim Fox could play. As I recall, he was a heady safety who was somewhat physical and could cover when need be. He also played next to Michael Haynes, who is the best shut down CB this franchise has ever seen and who's also in the Hall of Fame.

Despite all his experience, Fox however, isn't the greatest commentator. If what he reported is indeed true, it'd be interesting to see how this all plays out.

obviously the "kid" wasn't a fan then....ease up

Yeah well, I think I was being easy and what I wrote was hardly in the spirit of ballbusting or condescension.

 

[taltos]

Re: Tim Fox: Pats removed Jets cameraman from field last season

Thanks for the link. I went to BC law, I see he went to Suffolk. Yeah, he was a little ahead of my fan days. Although I should spare myself the further embarrassment of revealing that my Patriots fandom began with a crush on Tony Eason... :bricks:

Was that with or without the dress?