I posted this in the alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots group:
---
Once again watching Belichick's interview here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hyg9BhqESxU
It got me thinking. Exactly *how* would the Patriots use the tapes,
and what kind of edge could they gain? Let's start with the premise
that the Patriots did *not* use the tapes for the games in which they
were taping. That's been the contention all along by Belichick, and
even Matt Walsh, who appears to have a major axe to grind against
Belichick and the Pats. That was the conclusion of Goodell as well,
who interviewed more than 50 people about this.
So that means that the tapes were used as part of the "mosaic", as
Belichick put it, the package of information used to prepare for a
future game. What else might go into such a package?
- Legal videotapes
- NFL approved film
- Advance scouts
- Statistical breakdown of team's tendencies in every situation (they
have *reams* of info on each team in this regard)
- Inside information from players who used to be on your next
opponent's team
- Coach-to-coach conversation (yes, probably some of this goes
on...."Hey Mike, this is Bill. We're playing the Chargers this week
and we know you'd like us to beat them...anything I should watch out
for?")
- Scouting out the opponents' signals yourself
So that's a TON of information on each team, on each coach (head coach
or coordinator).
Here's how it appears that the Pats would use the tape. They video
the opponent's coaches and edit the tape to line up with different
angles of the same play. This way, they can try to match the signals
with exact defensive setup. But that really only helps if you know
their tendencies, because teams likely change signals routinely. But
they may be able to pick up on a pattern more easily with video.
But let's say they didn't have the illegal video. BB has said plainly
(and other coaches, like Shanahan, have said the same thing) that
without the video, they still watch and chart opponents' signals.
Without video, you'd still have legal NFL game film, and you'd still
have all the rest of the stuff I listed above. But instead of the
video, you'd have someone speaking into a voice recorder and typing
into their laptop or writing on their notepad what signals are being
used on each play. They would then take that information, line it up
with the legal film they have of the game, and *still* be able to
decipher what each signal meant. For example, if I was a scout, I
could jot this down:
3rd and 2, NYJ 35, 11:05, 2nd qtr - right hand to nose, left hand to
belt, right arm up, 2 fingers extended, then arm moved into a "T"
position
Something like that. I wouldn't have to chart the play, because we
would have other guys doing that. So I take my descriptions, and, so
long as I'm consistent in my description (and I'd eventually have my
own shorthand), we line them up with the actual plays and the legal
game film. And there's enough shots of their coaches shown on network
TV and other game film for me to say, "Yeah, that "T" motion right
there...that's what I mean by this notation." That kind of thing.
And, of course, the more I do it, and the more familiar I get with the
coaches, the easier it is for me to describe what they're doing.
There are professional people in the military who are adept at this
sort of thing, and in baseball, they're *continually* changing signs,
from game to game sometimes, because a trained person really can steal
signals rather easily.
So you end up with the same thing. Now, this is more labor intensive,
and it's a little harder, but it's the same exact principle.
Obviously, you can't really do this if you're going to use the
information *for that game*, but we've established the premise that
that's not what the Pats used it for anyway. So for advanced scouting
purposes, you have this process going on.
All taping does, then, is make this process a little more streamlined
and easier to do visually. And it allows for an ongoing library of
material. So is it helpful? Absolutely, or they wouldn't do it.
It's easier for them to do this than it is to do it the old-fashioned
way, no question. And it's probably more efficient.
So I think, when seen from this perspective, that the advantage is not
really that great. It's there, of course, or, again, they wouldn't do
it. But since people have been stealing signals successfully for eons
without the use of videotape, the Pats, with their attention to
detail, would still be wildly successful. The video simply allows
them more effeciency and streamlining of the process.
Was that worth doing, when they knew the risk of getting caught? I
don't know. Obviously they felt so, or at least BB felt that what
they were doing was within the boundaries, because he saw some gray
area presented to him by the bylaw that speaks of using the video in
the game itself, which they didn't do.
---
Once again watching Belichick's interview here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hyg9BhqESxU
It got me thinking. Exactly *how* would the Patriots use the tapes,
and what kind of edge could they gain? Let's start with the premise
that the Patriots did *not* use the tapes for the games in which they
were taping. That's been the contention all along by Belichick, and
even Matt Walsh, who appears to have a major axe to grind against
Belichick and the Pats. That was the conclusion of Goodell as well,
who interviewed more than 50 people about this.
So that means that the tapes were used as part of the "mosaic", as
Belichick put it, the package of information used to prepare for a
future game. What else might go into such a package?
- Legal videotapes
- NFL approved film
- Advance scouts
- Statistical breakdown of team's tendencies in every situation (they
have *reams* of info on each team in this regard)
- Inside information from players who used to be on your next
opponent's team
- Coach-to-coach conversation (yes, probably some of this goes
on...."Hey Mike, this is Bill. We're playing the Chargers this week
and we know you'd like us to beat them...anything I should watch out
for?")
- Scouting out the opponents' signals yourself
So that's a TON of information on each team, on each coach (head coach
or coordinator).
Here's how it appears that the Pats would use the tape. They video
the opponent's coaches and edit the tape to line up with different
angles of the same play. This way, they can try to match the signals
with exact defensive setup. But that really only helps if you know
their tendencies, because teams likely change signals routinely. But
they may be able to pick up on a pattern more easily with video.
But let's say they didn't have the illegal video. BB has said plainly
(and other coaches, like Shanahan, have said the same thing) that
without the video, they still watch and chart opponents' signals.
Without video, you'd still have legal NFL game film, and you'd still
have all the rest of the stuff I listed above. But instead of the
video, you'd have someone speaking into a voice recorder and typing
into their laptop or writing on their notepad what signals are being
used on each play. They would then take that information, line it up
with the legal film they have of the game, and *still* be able to
decipher what each signal meant. For example, if I was a scout, I
could jot this down:
3rd and 2, NYJ 35, 11:05, 2nd qtr - right hand to nose, left hand to
belt, right arm up, 2 fingers extended, then arm moved into a "T"
position
Something like that. I wouldn't have to chart the play, because we
would have other guys doing that. So I take my descriptions, and, so
long as I'm consistent in my description (and I'd eventually have my
own shorthand), we line them up with the actual plays and the legal
game film. And there's enough shots of their coaches shown on network
TV and other game film for me to say, "Yeah, that "T" motion right
there...that's what I mean by this notation." That kind of thing.
And, of course, the more I do it, and the more familiar I get with the
coaches, the easier it is for me to describe what they're doing.
There are professional people in the military who are adept at this
sort of thing, and in baseball, they're *continually* changing signs,
from game to game sometimes, because a trained person really can steal
signals rather easily.
So you end up with the same thing. Now, this is more labor intensive,
and it's a little harder, but it's the same exact principle.
Obviously, you can't really do this if you're going to use the
information *for that game*, but we've established the premise that
that's not what the Pats used it for anyway. So for advanced scouting
purposes, you have this process going on.
All taping does, then, is make this process a little more streamlined
and easier to do visually. And it allows for an ongoing library of
material. So is it helpful? Absolutely, or they wouldn't do it.
It's easier for them to do this than it is to do it the old-fashioned
way, no question. And it's probably more efficient.
So I think, when seen from this perspective, that the advantage is not
really that great. It's there, of course, or, again, they wouldn't do
it. But since people have been stealing signals successfully for eons
without the use of videotape, the Pats, with their attention to
detail, would still be wildly successful. The video simply allows
them more effeciency and streamlining of the process.
Was that worth doing, when they knew the risk of getting caught? I
don't know. Obviously they felt so, or at least BB felt that what
they were doing was within the boundaries, because he saw some gray
area presented to him by the bylaw that speaks of using the video in
the game itself, which they didn't do.
