Randy Edwards: In light of the Patriots videotaping scandal, I would be very interested to see an evaluation of the Patriots first-half DVOA compared to second-half DVOA. I suppose such statistics may be difficult to produce, but they have the potential to be eye-opening.
Not difficult to produce at all. If the Patriots are stealing the other team’s defensive signs, their offense should improve after halftime.
New England 2006 offensive DVOA by quarter: 9.9%, 25.2%, 11.8%, 1.6%
New England 2005 offensive DVOA by quarter: 28.5%, -7.7%, 17.9%, 14.3%
New England 2004 offensive DVOA by quarter: 4.5%, 41.2%, 47.9%, -0.2%
Sure doesn’t look like it to me. In fact, the 2006 Patriots ranked 28th out of 32 teams in the difference between their offensive DVOA in the first half and their offensive DVOA in the second half or overtime.
Top 5:
| Team |
1H |
2H |
Dif |
| MIA |
-22.0% |
-2.5% |
19.5% |
| DAL |
0.8% |
18.6% |
17.9% |
| HOU |
-10.1% |
6.1% |
16.2% |
| ATL |
-9.4% |
6.3% |
15.7% |
| SD |
16.7% |
32.0% |
15.3% |
Bottom 5:
| Team |
1H |
2H |
Dif |
| OAK |
-19.3% |
-53.8% |
-34.4% |
| CAR |
8.7% |
-17.0% |
-25.6% |
| SEA |
-3.3% |
-20.2% |
-16.9% |
| CIN |
21.0% |
7.4% |
-13.6% |
| NE |
17.7% |
6.1% |
-11.6% |
(Note: I realize that the way I worded this may make it sound like I’m saying that DVOA proves the Patriots were not stealing signs. What I mean to say here is that it doesn’t look like their offense has been better after halftime over the past three seasons — unless, of course, you want to argue that whatever benefits you get from stealing signs end after the third quarter. I do not mean to say that they were not stealing signs. Of course they were stealing signs. It just hasn’t helped their DVOA ratings on offense. That’s it.)
posted
9-12-2007 at 5:51 PM by
Aaron Schatz
||
Extra Points
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Your names and email address are required --- it's part of an effort to reduce comment spam -- but your email address won't be displayed.
If you create a comment, but it doesn't display, that's probably because it didn't pass through our spam filter (make any references to erectile dysfunction medication?), and is living in Comment Limbo Land. Please don't try to post it 14 more times -- try again once, and if it doesn't go through, then send an email to webmaster-at-footballoutsiders.com and let us know. Mentions of ED drugs, poker games, and anything you get email spam about will likely cause your comment to be held for moderation.
Please respect our discussion threads by refraining from the following:
- comments about politics
- ad hominem attacks on other commenters
- posts designed to promote another website
- thread-hijacking, particularly by turning threads that are not about Tom Brady or Peyton Manning into arguments about Brady vs. Manning
- discussing Spygate except in the Irrational Spygate Argument Thread.
Such comments may be deleted.
If you want to reference a link, put it in the URI field (go Rams!). Please don't put the 'less than' sign in the comment text -- it's seen as the beginning of an HTML tag, and that just messes everything up.
Line and paragraph breaks are automatic, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Aren’t the allegations against the defense. Wouldn’t we want to see the defense DVOA or the opponents offensive DVOA?
:: Frick — 9/12/2007 @ 6:09 pm
Those stats for Oakland and Carolina last year are just brutal…
:: Phill Skelton — 9/12/2007 @ 6:10 pm
#1 - They stole the signals from the NY defense, which would benefit the NE offense that plays against them.
:: Cogito — 9/12/2007 @ 6:21 pm
sure looks like a great statistic pointing to how clutch Brady is. Oh wait we are saying he has one of the biggest decreases in the 2nd half. Oh well he just finds a way to win games.
:: Buzz — 9/12/2007 @ 6:29 pm
“Not difficult to produce at all. If the Patriots are stealing the other team’s defensive signs, their offense should improve after halftime.”
Their’s a problem with this analysis A) it assumes they were successful at stealing signs against all teams. They may not have been. B) It assumes they were not using obtained information earlier in the contest. With today’s communications and video equipment they may have been able to use obtained information as soon as the second series. C) It assumes said information will always result in a positive impact. If you read the signs wrong you may put your team at a disadvantage. D) It assumes the impact of stealing signs is measurable. This one seems like it has to be true, but against bad teams maybe your already at such an advantage the significance isn’t great. Great teams may also be successful even if you know what’s coming. E) The sum of the second half includes garbage time when good teams like NE are sitting on the ball. F) It fails to include any adjustment for time with the football. It’s not clear over the course of a season that this will balance out.
:: johonny — 9/12/2007 @ 6:38 pm
I don’t think that the cheating would necessarily benefit the Pats either, but then again I’m not an NFL coach schooled in the ways of such things.
However, DVOA rides to the rescue and proves the Pats’ integrity. This blatant rules violation is of no apparent statistical benefit to them, on average, over the course of 16 first halves and 16 second halves (i.e., within a single game, lest we remember that they play the Jets 2 or 3 times a year).
Thus, the Patriots must tape the opposing coaches, in clear violation of league rules, only for benevolent reasons. If anything, the numbers show that they probably do it out of a sense of fairness — recognizing their own superiority — and upon cracking the code apparently only call plays that are designed to run into the teeth of the opposing defense.
:: Matt — 9/12/2007 @ 6:40 pm
It also assumes they did it every game.
:: sam — 9/12/2007 @ 6:41 pm
Forget my sarcastic chatter. Let’s see Aaron take on and refute any of the points in #5.
:: Matt — 9/12/2007 @ 6:43 pm
I think this line of reasoning is a bad idea, Mr. Schatz.
First of all, it gives credence to the whole theory that they do this all the time, that it is a unique competitive advantage the Patriots only have taken advantage of. It is also overly simplistic since a significant, if not the most significant, issue with the sign sealing is for future games, not half-time adjustments.
I also agree with #5 for reasons the statistic issues themselves aren’t as descriptive as they need to be to make sweeping conclusions.
I mentioned in the main EP thread that I think Goodell wants swift, serious punishment but he also wants this to go away so people can go back to focusing on the good aspects of football. I’ll repeat that here:
Punish the Pats, something reasonably serious but not not crazy over the top (3rd, one game, and $1 mil), and then never mention it again. In my opinion, this kind of debate will not yield good fruit.
:: JJcruiser — 9/12/2007 @ 6:44 pm
That should be “stealing” not “sealing” obviously. Mea culpa.
:: JJcruiser — 9/12/2007 @ 6:46 pm
Looks like you’re throwing the baby out wiht the bathwater here. We know they cheated against the Jets last week, why don’t you look at their second half DVOA in that game and then wait for other games that look to have been ones in which they cheated, instead of including every game and drowingin out any effect even if it is there?
Bottom line, if their 2nd half DVOA was better against the Jets, especially significantly better, it is suggestive that their cheating helped them. Including other games at this point just looks like an attempt by a fan to whitewash their actions.
:: Lakerg — 9/12/2007 @ 6:46 pm
11:
But the security people confiscated the tape at the end of the first half of the Jets game (haven’t you read any of this stuff?) so they weren’t able to benefit from the cheating in that game, making it meaningless for your purposes.
:: JJcruiser — 9/12/2007 @ 6:49 pm
I beg to differ a little on your analysis Aaron. Just because they Pats don’t have as much success in the 4th quarter shouldn’t ruin the theory. If you average the offensive DVOA over the 3 years - the 3rd quarter is NE’s best (25.9% avg). Followed by the 2nd quarter (19.6%). These would be the 2 quarters where inside info would be starting to come through to them. I think a good video analyst would be able to get some of the defensive calls down to the sideline by the end of the 1st quarter. The offense would have time while the D is playing to study the calls, just like they study the Polaroids.
So in summary, I think it is oversimplifying things to say that since the Pats don’t play as well in the 4th that they haven’t benefited from signal stealing. For the sake of argument, maybe by the 4th quarter the opposing D coordinators have realised that the defenses that are being ‘read’ easily by the Pats shouldn’t be called anymore. This would mean a decrease in 4th quarter DVOA…
Disclaimer: I must confess I love a good conspiracy theory.
:: Sifter — 9/12/2007 @ 6:51 pm
from profootballtalk.com:
DID PATS USE RADIOS ON DEFENSE?
Now that the entire pro football community is atwitter over the allegations/proof of cheating by the New England Patriots, we’re hearing more rumors on the NFL grapevine regarding the extent to which this stuff went on.
In addition to the rumor we heard on Wednesday that the Pats were putting microphones on defensive players in 2006 to pick up audibles and offensive line calls, we’re now hearing that there has been a rumor for years that the Patriots have inserted a radio in the helmet of one or more defensive players for the purposes of direct communications with the coaching staff.
Such a tactic, if true, would be an even more significant violation of the rules, in our opinion. As several readers have pointed out, the only thing illegal about the signal-stealing issue is the use of the electronic equipment to record the images. Nothing prevents a team from using low-tech means to track signals and connect them to the defensive coverages used. It’s simply harder to do it via the naked eye, especially since the video can be used later to confirm the specific signals given, if/when the team with the video is preparing to face the same opponent in the future — or a member of that coaching staff who might use the same signals in a new city.
So the only competitive advantage is that it’s a better way of doing something that already can be done.
In contrast, using radios in the helmets of defensive players gives the team access to something that folks who follow the rules simply can’t use.
Keep in mind that this new twist is only a rumor, one of many that are now on the NFL grapevine as this story continues to percolate. Still, given the events of the last 48 hours, it’s hard not to rule out anything at this point.
:: Frick — 9/12/2007 @ 6:53 pm
You may notice that Mr. Edwards did not ask if the Patriots were stealing signs, and I did not answer that question. Mr. Edwards asked if the Patriots’ DVOA changed between the first half and the second half. I answered that question. Stealing signs did not lead to DVOA improvement. If you are reading something else into it, you are reading too much into it.
:: Aaron Schatz — 9/12/2007 @ 6:53 pm
Thanks for the story.
The check is in the mail.
:: The Patriots P.R. Department — 9/12/2007 @ 6:54 pm
That doesn’t quite work for me Aaron:
“If the Patriots are stealing the other team’s defensive signs, their offense should improve after halftime.”
That’s not an answer to the question “how does their DVOA change from 1st half to 2nd half?” That’s your assertion.
:: Matt — 9/12/2007 @ 7:00 pm
RE:15
“If the Patriots are stealing the other team’s defensive signs, their offense should improve after halftime.
“Sure doesn’t look like it to me.”
If you didn’t intend to state that the Pats were not stealing signs, this isn’t the best choice of language.
:: countertorque — 9/12/2007 @ 7:03 pm
Look, if the Pats were using taping equipment in a way that violated league rules, and they prevously have been warned to not engage in such behavior, or face sanction, then Goodell should swing the axe. Now, I don’t think the effect of suspending a coach, even for the balance of a single year, is as great as might be suspected. I also think that the NFLPA would rightly object to taking away draft picks, since each draft pick represents some guaranteed money. I think the the best punishment would be to drop all of the Pats picks in 2008 to the end of the 7th round, with every other pick moving up a spot. Thus, no aspiring player loses an opportunity for some guaranteed cash, while every team gets an extremely stern message that the league office is not to be effed with.
If the rumours that that Pats have been putting receivers in defensive players’ helmets prove true, I’d repeat the treatment for the Pats’ draft picks in 2009 as well.
:: Will Allen — 9/12/2007 @ 7:05 pm
15/17:
It logically follows from Mr. Edwards’ question, and is certainly the implied issue, whether the DVOA change implicates the Patriots in stealing signs. Spitting out numbers about whether the DVOA changes by half is only relevant because of those allegations.
I admit to being very surprised though at those numbers. OTOH, I recall far too many Patriots games that seemed locked up only to see him go prevent in the last quarter and end up giving up a lot of points to make it closer than it should be. Case in point last year’s first game against the Jets.
:: JJcruiser — 9/12/2007 @ 7:05 pm
And thus ends FO’s only contribution to one of the biggest scandals ever to hit the NFL.
What was once an unbiased statistical site has completely jumped the shark in the name of rampant homerism.
:: Sam — 9/12/2007 @ 7:06 pm
12 -
First, look at 5’s supposition that “With today’s communications and video equipment they may have been able to use obtained information as soon as the second series.”
If there’s any validity to that suggestion, the whitewash defense that security had confiscated the tape before the 1st half ended doesn’t really help the Patriots very much.
And while I’m no IT guy, I think there is validity to that suggestion. The Patriots use of additional radio frequencies is also under investigation, I believe. (Haven’t you read any of this stuff?) What could that involve? PFW’s rumors about defensive helmets with radios, or maybe even a link-up feeding the video from Estrella to another “video assistant.” We’ll see, I suppose . . . .
:: Matt — 9/12/2007 @ 7:08 pm
Oh, OK, now I get it. When I said “sure doesn’t look like it to me,” people took that to mean that I was saying they weren’t stealing signs, when I was actually saying that the DVOA wasn’t going up after halftime. I’ve clarified that now.
:: Aaron Schatz — 9/12/2007 @ 7:10 pm
“I beg to differ a little on your analysis Aaron. Just because they Pats don’t have as much success in the 4th quarter shouldn’t ruin the theory. If you average the offensive DVOA over the 3 years - the 3rd quarter is NE’s best (25.9% avg). Followed by the 2nd quarter (19.6%). These would be the 2 quarters where inside info would be starting to come through to them.”
Thats a huge assumption. You dont just see a sign once and know what it is. You have to see it 6 or 7 times (or more) before you can pull it apart and tell what each piece means.
If the DC says Six Sigma Alpha Dog Red, and they run a cover 2 with bump and run coverage, with the DEs stunting, you don’t know what each part means. You can’t just say “Alpha” means bump and run, you have to see quite a few plays with the Alpha signal, where the safties aren’t playing cover 2, and the DEs aren’t stunting. You have to see multiple plays where those code words get reused, and that doesnt happen in a single quarter. Theres not enough plays to seperate things out, unless the DC is only using about 3 code words.
:: Rich Conley — 9/12/2007 @ 7:11 pm
Will: You don’t think suspending a head coach for an entire year is a big deal? Do you watch the same NFL I do?
(There’s a rookie pool, which presumably will not be affected by the reduction in picks (though I’d be interested if anyone knows what happened when Denver lost its third rounder), so I don’t think your point on that front is true, though it’s sort of irrelevant because your suggested course is ludicrous).
More to the point, do you really think that removing a team’s ENTIRE draft for an ENTIRE year is a reasonable punishment here, considering: (1) no one else has come forward and denied ever doing this and, in fact, most teams have tacitly admitted to it as well; (2) they have never been sanctioned before; and (3) you have a major important team and enormous fan base that will be crushed for the next five years because of a single infraction? Remember, the Commissioner doesn’t punish suspicions or arrests, he punishes facts and convictions.
I suspect that you’re full of hyperbole and know it and just want to make whatever punishment does come down seem light, even if it isn’t. If not, then I’m just glad you aren’t running the NFL because you’d ruin the league.
:: JJcruiser — 9/12/2007 @ 7:12 pm
What was once an unbiased statistical site has completely jumped the shark in the name of rampant homerism.
Overreacting a little, aren’t we? Honestly, Aaron chose his words poorly with this part:
If the Patriots are stealing the other team’s defensive signs, their offense should improve after halftime.
And the article doesn’t really give conclusive proof either way about whether they might have benefited from stealing signals. But other than that, I don’t see the big deal here. And let’s all remember, there are plenty of non-Patriots fans amongst the Outsiders, so I don’t see the whole conspiracy theory thing going on at FO.
:: Alex — 9/12/2007 @ 7:17 pm
22:
Don’t believe everything you read on pft; Florio has a very definite agenda.
In any event, I doubt we will see. If there’s no evidence of this alleged audio irregularity, it will probably never come out.
To the point, however, sure they could have been wiring information during the game, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the video taping. If all they are doing is relaying signals, the best and easiest way to do that is with a walkietalkie and binoculars, so I don’t think in this particular instance the videographer-cheating is going to be relevant to the Jets game.
That said, you make a good point that, in general, potential cheating may have been going on earlier than the end of the first half. I just think it’s unlikely owing to the whole of the circumstances.
:: JJcruiser — 9/12/2007 @ 7:18 pm
The one reason why I might not see the sign stealing as that big a deal is that it would be so easy to subvert the stealer. Having two people giving defensive signals, alternating them each quarter, and changing signals at halftime, would seem to make sign stealing very difficult, unless you had a couple of 12 play drives to start each half. Gosh, just changing the “hot” sign each quarter, with two different signalers, would probably do the trick. If this activity has been rumoured in the league, and a coaching staff hasn’t taken precautions against the stealing, that’s a coaching staff that is too damned lazy.
:: Will Allen — 9/12/2007 @ 7:19 pm
23 — No Aaron, the “doesn’t look like it to me” is not the only problem. You also say that “[i]f the Patriots are stealing the other team’s defensive signs, their offense should improve after halftime,” and then set about to prove that their offense does not improve after halftime. And you’ve yet to address anything raised in #5.
25 — How dare you suggest that losing an entire draft would be anything more than a mere speedbump on the road to the SB for Belichick and Pioli! Every guy they picked at the end of the seventh round would be better than every other guy picked in any other round. If anything is crushing the Pats’ enormous fan base, it is your defeatism.
Seriously though, what level of BS Heaven must one reach before claiming that “no one else has come forward and denied ever doing this”? Personally, I’ve never denied murdering someone in court, so, ipso facto . . . .
:: Matt — 9/12/2007 @ 7:22 pm
“Remember, the Commissioner doesn’t punish suspicions or arrests, he punishes facts and convictions.”
Wait, Pac-Man got convicted? When did that happen?
More seriously, this data would imply that the Pats spent significant time and effort, defying multiple league warnings, breaking specific rules against video taping… for no benefit at all. Which makes it even funnier.
:: Bill — 9/12/2007 @ 7:23 pm
JCruiser, reflect on the meaning of the word “if”, and then repost. When I specifically warn someone to not engage in behavior “x” ever again, and if it is proven that they then decided to engage in behavior “x”, and that behavior affects my business model in my opinion, sorry, but I’m going to have a hanging, figuratively speaking. It concentrates the mind.
:: Will Allen — 9/12/2007 @ 7:26 pm
27:
I don;t believe everything I read on PFT. In fact, I don’t read it.
But I do believe that the league also is investigating some radio frequency issues that occurred during the game, as ESPN and other outlets reported (link is in my name).
Whether there’s any evidence of this alleged audio irregularity or whether such evidence ever comes out, it’s just a theory as to why the confiscation of this past Sunday’s tape might not have deprived the Pats of all benefits from it.
:: Matt — 9/12/2007 @ 7:31 pm
Meh regarding what this says about the Pats. The most impressive thing here is confirmation that Art Shell and Tom Walsh were able to turn a run-of-the-mill-bad-offense into the most amazingly awful offense in NFL history through their halftime adjustments.
:: JR — 9/12/2007 @ 7:31 pm
This also assumes that the opponent is incapable of making their own adjustments - a major reason why last week’s Jets game is a poor barometer.
Mangini knew exactly what the Patriots were doing.
:: Truman — 9/12/2007 @ 7:32 pm
“I think we always look past these things. I don’t think this is a concern of anybody. It’s certainly not a concern of mine. I don’t think anybody cares too much about what people say or do. It’s probably more flattering to us than anything. People, maybe sometimes when they think we’ve got everything figured out, maybe it speaks to our preparation. I’m actually flattered by it.”
:: Tom Brady — 9/12/2007 @ 7:40 pm
Well, I’ll reply to #5, which was aggressive, yet extremely poorly argued.
A) Limited success would produce limited improvement, not no improvement.
B) Fair point, but I think most people were assuming the tapes were reviewed at halftime, which is realistically the only time that the head coach has free.
C) Yup. So? You’ve just argued for how the Patriots might not benefit from stealing signals. Aaron looked at if they was evidence they were benefiting from something (in the second half). All you did was give an explanation.
D) The person in question said they have the potential to be “eye-popping.” It’s not. That’s all.
E) Garbage-time adjustments are in DVOA. You still have to gain first downs to effectively kill the clock.
F) DVOA is per play, not cumulative.
:: Pat — 9/12/2007 @ 8:07 pm
It seems to me a sample size of just 16 games is insufficient given all of the variables that aren’t being controlled for: injuries, weather, in game strategic adjustments. However, I find it interesting that when you average the 3 seasons you get: 17.3, 19.6, 25.9, 5.2.
Except for the 4th quarter looks like what we would expect from a team stealing signals. And considering they’ve won 75% of their games during this time, is it a surprise to see their 4th quarter DVOA fall ? Teams know that they are going to run the ball and it negatively impacts their efficiency.
:: TBW — 9/12/2007 @ 8:08 pm
#32, I have some issues with PFT, but in light of it’s performance on the Vick story, compared to ESPN’s, I’d be very hestitant to cite ESPN as a better source of news. The guy who runs PFT at least admits to trading in rumours, whereas there are at least a couple of guys at ESPN who ought to admit to coloring their stories because maintainig access to sources is their highest priority. Pasquarelli is especially bad in this regard.
:: Will Allen — 9/12/2007 @ 8:09 pm
27, 31, 32:
Just making something a point of emphasis by sending a warning letter doesn’t mean you can go off the deep end on punishment. It’s not a perfect analogy, but, e.g., I warn my son sternly not to go into the parking lot without holding my hand, it doesn’t mean I punish him worse than if I had forgotten to, it’s intended to stop the behavior not raise the bar for the punishment.
The vague references to the “audiogate” issue have been only that. The only website to talk about it specifically is pft, so I think it’s fair to point to that as the main instigator of that rumor.
The reason no one coming forward to say anything is notable is because all of these head coaches have been given opportunities to talk about it recently and been asked about it, and so far, I haven’t read anyone saying “I never do that and never would.” That’s a fair appraisal. Maybe I missed someone who did say it and then I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. Whereas, as others have cataloged (such as in Simmons’ article) other coaches have admitted to doing precisely what Belichick does, just not as stupidly brazenly. So I think it’s a fair point that, right now, the HCs do not appear wholly blameless.
:: JJcruiser — 9/12/2007 @ 8:09 pm
38: I’m not going to comment any more on that issue, and shouldn’t have said anything in the first place. People can take or leave whatever they like from any internent news/blog source.
:: JJcruiser — 9/12/2007 @ 8:13 pm
38 –
Will, I didn’t intend to claim that PFT is less or more trustworthy than ESPN. I just reported truthfully that I don’t read it; that if I did, I would not believe everything there, just as I do not believe everything I read at ESPN; and whatever truth there is to various rumors, I did give credence to the report that the NFL is investigating this allegation. I felt I’d seen the story at Boston.com too, but the ESPN story came up in the search.
:: Matt — 9/12/2007 @ 8:21 pm
JCruiser, that’s why I stated that my warning upon the first offense would have stated that further offense would mean facing sanction, and I did mean saying in the warning that the specific sanction would be having an entire year’s draft pick moved to the end of the 7th round. Bill Belichik is not a little boy. He’s not a 22 year old with money in his pocket for the first time. He’s a grown man, with decades of experience in the industry. If I say, “Don’t do “x” again, because doing “x” messes with the business model, and if you do “x” again, you will be blowing up an entire year’s worth of draft picks for your organization, what happens after that is on Bill Belichik. If he’s too stupid to understand the plain meaning of words, it’s time for him to find a less demanding career.
:: Will Allen — 9/12/2007 @ 8:25 pm
39:
Of course more severe punishments are doled out after a specific warning and subsequent misconduct ignoring the warning. I don’t want to go off on a(nother?) ridiculous tangent here by debating the deterrence value of increased punishments for repeat offenders or after issuance of specific warnings, but isn’t the entire criminal justice system predicated on this approach? Or look at the son in your example: say you did forget to warn him, but regardless, your main goal is deterrence, so you punish and also warn. (”Never do that again!” or some other equally effective remedy is what I’d probably resort to with my three-year-old.) Then five minutes later, he does it again. You won’t punish him more severely the second time, when the first warning or punishment clearly was not enough?
As to your continued insistence that HCs who have not been accused of anything stand up and deny their guilt preemptively, I only hope you’re not behind me the next time I get pulled over for speeding: I’d expect you to voluntarily pull over right behind me and tell the officer that you weren’t speeding, thereby proving that what I did was not just a mere violation of the letter of the law but also a really icky thing to do too.
:: Matt — 9/12/2007 @ 8:38 pm
that’s why i don’t like the patriots: because they cheat. at least with the colts you know where you stand: roll over or bill polian will choke your support staff.
:: starzero — 9/12/2007 @ 8:43 pm
Aaron and Simmons talk about their Patriots love in one column? Oh, the humanity!
(Of course, it’s at ESPN, so you can’t believe anything they say.)
Aaron says: “Right now, everyone is out to get the Pats, but in a few months, they’ll hate the Colts just as much and be desperate for someone like San Diego or Pittsburgh to win something.”
Of course, he assumes that people aren’t tired of Peyton already (which they are), and forgets that the Steelers did win something just two seasons ago. But only because the refs cheated. Hey, remember a couple of years ago when the Steelers beat the Seahawks solely because of a borderline holding call and an obvious offensive PI?
:: Matt — 9/12/2007 @ 8:59 pm
Re: #28
That’s what I don’t get about this. Surely the defensive coaching staff changes the “hot” signal from quarter to quarter, if not from series to series.
Whatever advantage one gets from taping the signs (and I have to assume there is one, or else why bother), I’m thinking it comes from something other than the signs.
Unless other coaches are even stupider than Belichick was for doing this, and really don’t change their “hot” signs.
:: PatsFan — 9/12/2007 @ 9:23 pm
This post is going to get bashed as total Patriots homerism trying to justify or equivocate or rationalize, etc.
OK, that disclaimer said, I’m trying to think of what advantage a team could get from taping an opponent’s signals. Obviously, there’s an advantage against a division rival–but shouldn’t Belichick already have a similar advantage over Mangini, given that he proverbially “taught him everything he knows”?
More puzzling is why the Pats would be taping signals against Green Bay, a team that was (1) bad, and (2) not going to be played again for four years.
One thought I had is that maybe they’re gaining a competitive advantage by better evaluating their own talent by knowing what the defensive call was. How often do we hear Mike Tanier say in TDZ “I can’t say if so-and-so blew the play or not, because I don’t know what the offensive and defensive calls were”. Maybe one benefit the Patriots derived from figuring out Green Bay’s defensive calls after the fact was to better quantify which of their own players played well against certain types of defensive calls? Just a crazy theory. Still breaking the rules, but it would explain a little why they would have been taping Green Bay, of all people…
:: MJK — 9/12/2007 @ 9:50 pm
#47:
That actually makes sense, sort of. Belichick does, from what I’ve read, spend a considerable amount of time scouting his own team’s tendencies, and this would help him do that. And it would explain why he would bother doing that in games that were clearly not competitive. Interesting theory. Still cheating, but at least now it makes sense why he would bother doing it against those teams.
:: Alex — 9/12/2007 @ 10:14 pm
Re: 47/48
Oh yea…that makes perfect sense.
I’ll try that logic next time I get a speeding ticket…
Officer, I wasn’t speeding, I was “evaluating” the speed tolerance of the road.
You guys are killing me.
:: OMO — 9/12/2007 @ 10:34 pm
Re: #49
Apparently poor OMO is so far gone he’s lost the capacity for reading comprehension and/or the ability to make analogies.
Note in #48 the following text: “Still cheating,”
Note in #47 the following text: “Still breaking the rules”
:: PatsFan — 9/12/2007 @ 10:39 pm
Apparently poor OMO is so far gone he’s lost the capacity for reading comprehension and/or the ability to make analogies.
I’m afraid he can’t be cured. Too bad, really. His trolling was amusing for a while, there. Now it’s just downright depressing to see.
:: Alex — 9/12/2007 @ 10:53 pm
47: That actually sounds plausible. If the Pats pull that out as their explanation, they should send you season tickets.
I am no insider, but it doesn’t seem to me that it’s practical to drastically alter the calls quarter to quarter. There are 11 guys out there that have to focus on playing defense, not cranking up the enigma machine. I was reading something on the other thread (veracity unknown) that the Raiders hadn’t changed their signals even after Gruden left. Remember the receiver has to be able to unencrypt the message too.
With the Jets it makes sense for them to take signals for the second meeting in the year. I remember seeing something about Belichick not losing twice on one season to opponents. This is mostly true, the only times it’s happened outside of 2000, are in the 05 and 06 playoffs (Broncos, Colts).
Going from 2000 through 2006 there are 31 instances of the Patriots playing an opponent twice (or three times in the case of the 06 Jets) in one season. In 17 cases the result didn’t change from the first meeting to the next. 8 it went from loss to win, 6 cases it went from win to loss.
Looks like I’ll have to subscribe to the DVOA database if I want to do something more interesting like look at DVOA from meeting 1 to meeting 2.
:: RowdyRoddyPiper — 9/13/2007 @ 12:11 am
In the absense of media hub-bub, I’d have looked at Aaron’s lists and said it was a coaching prep and conditioning issue–those teams that tail off are just gassed or their staffs made poor in-game adjustments. (Someone also mentioned garbage time affecting the 4th qtr–think of the Colts in 2004/2005, when Manning played about 50% of the 4th qtrs because they had so many sick leads).
Sticking with the poor conditioning theme, MAYBE a team with an unfair advantage might offset poor conditioning late in a game with… illegally obtained insights, bumping their 4th qtr DVOA from a -10% to a +2%. Still none too impressive when compared to some other teams, but a +12% swing is nothing to sneeze at. What might that correspond to? One extra FG plus a non-scoring drive that consumes 5 minutes instead of 2, thereby depriving the opponent of a scoring opportunity? Sounds like small potatoes, but in the 4th qtr of a close game, that’s a big deal.
I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS THE CASE. But it is possible. If I was on a jury I’d hear Aaron’s arguments and say “oh yeah, that’s pretty clear, they aren’t cheating” and then I’d hear the above argument that says they don’t have to score 3 TDs every 4th quarter if they’re cheating, they just have to improve more than they otherwise would have played. Which is impossible to measure.
BTW, I hope Pats fans understand all the bitterness is not purely directed at the Pats, but at the behavior of many of their fans over the past half decade. Aaron is wrong (as quoted in #45 above) to say similar bitterness would be aimed at the Colts (or Chargers or Steelers or Ravens)–their fans are, in general, nowhere near as arrogant or ubiquitous or loud or articulate or boorish as the general perception of Pats fans.
My view is that, by and large, Pats fandom does not just root for its team, it stakes some sort of claim to multifaceted superiority over the rest of NFLdom. Winning is great, but not enough; we have to be smarter, harder working, morally superior to you as well. And luck has no place in this discussion. (As witnessed in the “it’s not enough to win 3 SBs, but we have to verbally hammer down your QB into the dust as a choker and not as good-looking as ours and therefore not as good as ours.” Which we all know is the sign of an inferiority complex, but I’ll leave the afterschool special psychology out of it for now. If you doubt that, sift through much of this site’s discussion threads. And the fans of all teams here at FO are the level-headed ones–discussion threads at CBS Sportsline and FOxSports etc are full or the raging idiot fans of all stripes, where Pats fans have shouted down the competition for years on end.)
This is coming from a Yankee fan; I know about unseemly fan arrogance and shudder at it. I don’t generally walk around Seattle trumpeting my NYY fandom because of the reputation of my co-fans. But I do wear my Colt hat 365 days a year. I wear it with a suit and when chopping firewood and have done so for over 20 years living on both coasts without ever getting a negative comment (aside from my wife’s revulsion at the hat itself)–could I have done that with a Yankee hat on? No. I am not casting aspersons on all or even most Pats fans, especially not the intellectuals here, but a lot of the axe-grinding seen here and in the media the past couple days is aimed at #1 the NE fans and #2 Crusty Bill B and finally at #3, a jealousy-inducing successful corporate brand. Just my opinion.
:: Bobman — 9/13/2007 @ 1:45 am
holy crap, sorry that was so damn long. If you manage to read the whole thing without dozing off, I’ll buy you a Redhook next time you’re in Seattle.
:: Bobman — 9/13/2007 @ 1:47 am
Despite all the comparisons of the NFL to, variously: a war, the cold war, the arms race, geopolitcs, nuclear brinksmanship, the space race, and the clash of nations - it isn’t any of those things. It’s a profit-making sports exhibition put on by affiliated businesses under a defined and controlled set of circumstances with laboriously approved rules.
There are rules about when you can talk to free agents, there are rules about how much you can pay players, there are rules about how your team is marketed, and there are rules regarding the conduct of member franchises towards one another.
The Patriots, by all accounts I have read, seem to have broken those rules, not once, but several times, and have skirted very close to breaking them many times.
Mr. Schatz has shown us that over a goodly number of games no advantage seemed to accrue to New England from sign stealing, if it occurred. That’s good as far as it goes, but at this point we don’t know if signs were stolen at all games, or only a few. And we don’t know if stolen signs were actually used at any of those particular games.
For myself, at least, it would be more interesting to see if there ARE games in which NE’s 2nd half DVOA is higher than the first half and if those games correspond to alleged violations.
But as I see it, it’s all beside the point. The OUTCOME of the violations is immaterial when it comes to NFL policy.
What do you suppose would happen to a team that cut its own TV deal, outside the league, even if it amounted to less money to the team? The point isn’t what benefit accrued, the point is willful repeated violation of the agreed upon rules of the NFL polity.
This is a funny issue to me because this site’s many (many many) bright and loyal Pats fan are getting to see what much of NFL fandom sees when we look at New England.
Sure, the NE organization has great players and clever schemes and they are good at the business of the game. They also seem to be the guys who’ll chop block you at a touch football game.
Look past your Boston Blinders ™ for once and see this for what it is - arrogance bordering on contempt for the rest of the NFL.
@All You Guys Who Seem To Think It’s The Fault of The Non-Cheaters if New England Steals Their Signals
So, by your logic, if someone breaks into your house, it’s really your fault for not having a better security system, right?
It really doesn’t matter what locks I put on my door - if you’re illegally in my house and you get caught, you’re in trouble.
Yes, a sensible person would wish to avoid such break-ins altogether, so they put a good lock (varied signals) on their door. But you guys seem to suggest if they dont’ put up barbed wire (many alternating callers) and a guard tower (an unbreakable cipher), it’s really their own fault if someone breaks in. That’s simply wrong.
:: Biffy — 9/13/2007 @ 2:55 am
“I also think that the NFLPA would rightly object to taking away draft picks, since each draft pick represents some guaranteed money. I think the the best punishment would be to drop all of the Pats picks in 2008 to the end of the 7th round, with every other pick moving up a spot.”
Teams have been punished in the past with the loss of a draft pick for various rules violations. I recall the Broncos lost a draft pick (3rd round?) for some salary cap violation a few years ago. I don’t think the NFLPA can prevent the Commissioner from punishing teams by making them forfeit draft picks. (And even if this were a problem, perhaps there could be extra compensatory picks to make up for forfeited draft picks.) Have the Patriots traded any of their draft picks next year? If so, that may affect any decision on losing draft picks, since they obviously couldn’t be punished by losing a draft pick that they have already traded away.
I think Belichick should be fined and suspended. Since the Commissioner has not hesitated to hand out lengthy suspensions to various players for their off-field transgressions that tarnish the league, it would be unfair to not suspend a coach who tarnishes the league by cheating and thus affecting games on the field. Of course, if he were suspended, maybe Belichick would figure out a way to circumvent his suspension and communicate with coaches and/or players during games.
:: Marko — 9/13/2007 @ 4:04 am
re: 21
“What was once an unbiased statistical site has completely jumped the shark in the name of rampant homerism.”
You’re right, they just lost their entire readership.
:: Boston Dan — 9/13/2007 @ 6:05 am
Look past your Boston Blinders â„¢ for once and see this for what it is - arrogance bordering on contempt for the rest of the NFL.
@All You Guys Who Seem To using videotape to do the sameThink It’s The Fault of The Non-Cheaters if New England Steals Their Signals
To reiterate, the problem is not “stealing the signals”. First of all, you can’t “steal” signals, since they are made in public. Second, all teams try to understand and decode (”steal”) the other teams’ signals - there is really no doubt about that. A few years back Shanahan boasted he could have the other team’s defensive signals figured out by the second half, with some luck. He may have been bullshitting and playing mind games, but certainly no one accused him of “stealing”, let alone open a league inquiry on the matter.
The Pats are accused of using videotape to do the very same thing Shanahan boasted to be able to do without. By all means, videotaping can potentially make the otherwise legal activity faster/more efficient, and since it’s contrary to league rules, it is an unfair advantage and it should be punished.
But “stealing signals”, although it may sound all righteous and eighth-commandment-ish, is not the issue. Plain old cheating is.
:: slo-mo-joe — 9/13/2007 @ 9:26 am
Mr. Schatz has shown us that over a goodly number of games no advantage seemed to accrue to New England from sign stealing, if it occurred. That’s good as far as it goes, but at this point we don’t know if signs were stolen at all games, or only a few. And we don’t know if stolen signs were actually used at any of those particular games.
For myself, at least, it would be more interesting to see if there ARE games in which NE’s 2nd half DVOA is higher than the first half and if those games correspond to alleged violations.
But as I see it, it’s all beside the point. The OUTCOME of the violations is immaterial when it comes to NFL policy.
I agree completely. On the other hand, it is relevant to the accusations that the Patriots were gaining some massive advantage from this. It shouldn’t affect the punishment going forward, but it should affect the way we look at past events.
:: Scott de B. — 9/13/2007 @ 10:04 am
Seems to me like the potential to be wrong with a stolen sign (they’re dropping 7 into coverage vs. they’re blitzing 6) even 10-20% of the time might lead to some pretty catastrophic plays.
Also, NFL head coaches are so paranoid that they cover their mouths while calling plays but they wouldn’t change up their defensive signals at some point during a game?
I think this whole story is a big don’t care.
:: Matt — 9/13/2007 @ 11:08 am
Just ruminating on the actual nature of the unfair advantage the Patriots by all accounts seem to have derived from the videotaping.
If a team hires a code-breaking genius, or a RainMan-like savant, who can decode visually collected signals more efficiently than other teams, would that be an unfair advantage similar to that the Patriots got by videotaping the signals? What if a team developed (or bought exclusively) computer software that, after input of visually collected signals and schemes, would interpret them (match signal with scheme component) faster and better that coaches could do with their brains and paper pads?
Would either one a) constitute cheating, and b) violate any NFL rule?
:: slo-mo-joe — 9/13/2007 @ 11:50 am
Isn’t a byproduct of recording signals the ability to use them in a 2nd matchup with a team? Or even something as simple as figuring out what other teams do to make sure your signals aren’t caught, etc? Anyway, the point is, the effects of this may not show up as quickly as the 2nd half, but affect the outcome of future games. Hard to say what is gained, not gained from these actions.
:: Papa Narb — 9/13/2007 @ 11:52 am
OK, here’s some additional thoughts on this. I’ll break this into multiple posts so I don’t have to buy anyone a Redhook. :-) I’m in this thread, because the other one is too crazy right now.
(1) Pats Fans: I agree there are some mind-numbingly stupid and obnoxious Pats fans out there right now–it’s a function of the Pats winning a lot–and sometimes they even make me ashamed to be a Pats fan, but I object to the contention that this site has many of them. Some of the most thoughtful and level-headed fans that post regularly on this site seem to be Pats fans or…Owslek, Starshatterer, db, to name a few (sorry if I got anyone’s allegiance or spelled their screen name wrong, and no offense to anyone I didn’t mention). On the other hand, there are only a very few fans, of any team, that post on this site that I regularly find obnoxious. So I get a little tired of some of the non-Pats fans on this site constantly telling us Pats fans how obnoxious we, as a group are, when the individuals on this site generally do not warrant it. Bobman, can you find posts where Owslek, or Starshatterer, or I, or even Rich Conley (or Aaron for that matter) have implied that the Pats win because they are somehow superior in some indefinable way to the rest of the NFL? Or that they win because of that intangible “team mentality” crap that the mainstream media insisted on shoving down our throats for a couple of years? We argue that they win because some of their players are underrated, or that they find more effective ways than many teams to spend their cap space, or that they have good conditioning, or are good at study and film breakdown (now, this is coming to seem that maybe it is with some assistance), or have good positional and schematic flexibility, or have gotten lucky, in the draft and in games.
I hate most Colts fans on most football message boards, because they are obnoxious idiots who can’t tell offensive line play from a hole in their rear and whose typical argument is “uR team sux, go back to beantown, *&$%&, Peyton RULZ”, and yet I don’t vent that vitriol at Colts fans on this site. In fact, I generally really enjoy posts by Purds and Bobman, the two FO poster Colts fans that immediately spring to mind when I think of the Colts.
:: MJK — 9/13/2007 @ 12:37 pm
OK, rant over. Next point.
(2) Belichick and cheating: I think one thing that makes Belichick an effective coach is that he is willing to push the boundaries and look for any edge he can. This means doing things that many teams don’t know because they don’t know it’s legal, things that are legal but maybe shouldn’t be, and things that aren’t legal but that no one ever seems to get caught or sanctioned for doing. I think this video-taping thing falls into the last category. I don’t know where the idea that Pats fans think Belichick is some virtuous, honorable soul came from. I don’t think a virtuous honorable soul, a “nice guy” as it were, would make a very good NFL coach (case in point: Pete Carroll). A couple of years back the Patriots got flagged in consecutive games for illegally giving a special teamer a leg up to block a FG–it was something refs weren’t watching for, so they were trying to do it because it gave them a small edge. The ofiicials cracked down, and the Patriots stopped. Then there was the incident a little while back when the camera caught Tedy Bruschi nudging the ball back right before a measurement. Again, questionable behavior that the Pats thought they could get away with.
But here’s the thing…teams do this. Wake up and smell the coffee, everyone. In the NFL, teams will search for any possible way to get even a razor thin edge. I suspect every offensive lineman in the league is coached to hold as much as they can get away with without being flagged, and is taught techniques to hold subtly so that the refs don’t spot it. Every DB in the league probably learns techniques to contact the reciever so it looks incidental, and every WR gets coached to make real incidental contact look like PI.
Similarly, I would be shocked if every team in the league wasn’t trying to decipher, or “steal” defensive signals, and I would be even more shocked if a few other teams weren’t surruptitiously videotaping the other team’s signals.
There’s also probably a lot of athletes using HGH, because it’s undetectable.
The difference between the two is that the league has very clear penalties if you get caught holding (10 yard penalty) or using HGH (4 game suspension), but not if you get caught videotaping the opposing coaches. So I don’t see how you can argue that pushing the rule boundaries in a case where the punishment is not defined is worse than pushing them when it is, or that the punishment should be dire and severe just because it is “cheating”.
:: MJK — 9/13/2007 @ 12:46 pm
I didn’t read everything written here so I apologize if I am reemphasizing points already stated - but does it really matter if the “signal-stealing” helped the Patriots or not?
The point is that the intent of stealing signals is malicious. If I attempted to steal a candy bar and got caught, I still intended to steal and potentially eat the candy bar.
:: Andy — 9/13/2007 @ 1:32 pm
12: Tha the tapes were confiscated at halftime means little, it is alleged that they were synching the stuff not in real time, but very close to it, a matter of a play or so. Maybe I should have asked if their DVOA improved after the 1st quarter or first series (sample size problems introduced) instead of first half, but unless the Jets changed their entire defensive signal system at halftime it is all but certain that the Pats benefitted from the cheating in the second half, as well as the first.
I had heard whispers in the past about some of their sleazy tactics (illegal video being far from the only one), what is surprising is that it took this long for anybody to call them on any of it. I guess it took having one of their inner core of assitants get out into the wild for it to come into the open.
:: Lakerg — 9/13/2007 @ 1:55 pm
The point is that the intent of stealing signals is malicious. If I attempted to steal a candy bar and got caught, I still intended to steal and potentially eat the candy bar.
Stealing a candy bar is illegal. “Stealing” a signal just means trying to figure out what signals mean to predict what defensive scheme the team will run. It’s no more unethical, or uncommon, than looking for “tells” like the CB’s lining up inside of the WR’s right before a blitz. Is keying in on that, or the fact the the MLB goes into a certain position right before the safeties drop into a two-deep zone, or anything like that illegal or cheating? OK, now let’s involve the actual signals. What if the QB just happens to notice a blitz always happens right after the other team’s defensive coordinator touches his belt buckle and pumps his fist in the air? Is making this observation and acting on it illegal or unethical? Every football team in the league tries to figure out defensive signals, just as every defense in the league studies the opposing offense’s snap count to try to anticipate the snap, and every hitter in baseball studies film of pitchers physical motions (and probably of the manager’s and catcher’s signals) to try to figure out what pitch is coming.
The only rule that the Patriots broke is the one that says you are not allowed to have a video camera on in use on the sidelines–a rule put in place because they league doesn’t want people to use technology to assist in figuring out the other team’s signals. I understand the rule…a lot of the challenge of the game is trying to guess what the other team will do, and it’s probably best if that challenge is not eliminated because of better technology.
But don’t try to equate “stealing” signals to any kind of illegal act, or for that matter, to any kind of act that is against the rules. What the Pats allegedly did wrong was use banned technology to try to help them figure out other team’s signals, although until the league makes its announcement, we don’t even know that for sure.
:: MJK — 9/13/2007 @ 2:30 pm
@59 Yes, I agree. Effectiveness of the violation should weigh in the determination of punishment, but not in the assignment of guilt.
@58
Yes, you’ve pointed out a real error in a point that essentially stands as written without contradiction. I should have said ” videotaping signal calls in violation of league policy” or” IVSCIVOLP” for short, everytime I wrote something so the literalists out there couldn’t mistake my meaning. I substituted the jejeune “stealing signals” as a shorthand.
My argument, which you did not address, remains exactly as proposed, (with your modifications now added): THE FAULT OF THE MATTER DOES NOT LIE WITH THE TEAM AGAINST WHOM THE “IVSCIVOLP” VIOLATION WAS COMMITTED, no matter how “easy” you judge it would be to thwart the violation.
A number of people wrote something to the effect of “it’s really the Jets fault for having moronic signals, you could just do X and Y and Z and TOTALLY thwart the videotaping of signals”. Which I argued was, in fact, beside the point and amounted to “blaming the victim”.
:: Biffy — 9/13/2007 @ 3:35 pm
Oops - I took out “intentional” in my silly “VSCIVOLP” acronym, I thought the “I” made the “word” easier to say, but I forgot to put it in. I apologize for any confusion caused.
:: Biffy — 9/13/2007 @ 3:38 pm
Aaron, I assume, doesn’t think that knowing the signals implies knowing what the other team WILL do (and I’d like to hear more about that). Otherwise, it’s crazy to suggest stealing the signals isn’t a big help. There isn’t a sport in the world in which knowing what the opponent is going to do doesn’t give you a sizable advantage. Knowing where the next pitch will be? Check. Knowing what kind of serve is coming? Check. Knowing when the striker is going to shoot or sprint? Check. Darn it, even in chess it would be a great advantage knowing just a few seconds before your opponent’s move what he’s going to play… Even chess becomes a game of reaction when there’s little time left on the clock, and a small advantage like that would be a killer among players of similar ability.
:: Noah of Arkadia — 9/13/2007 @ 4:21 pm
#67: OK, let me rephrase. The way the Patriots went about stealing the signals is shady according to the rules the NFL has in place. The intent is still malicious - what they were doing was wrong in the eyes of the league and based on the statements the Patriots staff has made afterwards suggests that they know it was wrong.
:: Andy — 9/13/2007 @ 4:51 pm
This might be a better test of whether the NE sign stealing benefitted their play:
Compare the NE records and “DVOA” against teams they’ve played twice in a season.
If they are using sign stealing to an advantage, their record and DVOA against a team they’ve already played would be better in the later games.
:: Brian — 9/13/2007 @ 5:08 pm
I really don’t think that 1st half to second half dvoa proves anything
I can only guess at the ligistics of what they are trying to do
But the idea that they are codebreaking on the run (or even in a condensed 15-20 min halftime) seems far fetched to me. They’re are alot of moving peices going on in a football game. That seems more like film you would need to get the 2 weeks prior maybe, and then sit down in a quiet room and think through during the week. Maybe game day film would be worthwhile for double checking that the code hasn’t been altered. But if that’s the case it won’t be reflect by a change in 1st to 2nd half DVOA (unless of course they figure out that they’ve been using bad info for the first half)
:: Phil — 9/13/2007 @ 6:38 pm
Noah (70)
The signal sent in from the sidelines does not dictate exactly what the defense does. It is a suggestion from the D-coordinator, but a defense is fundamentally reactive, and based on what the offense does, the defenders may adjust their responsibilities and actions. For example, the offense could come out in a 5-wide set. The D-coordinator could signal a zone blitz from the left side. Then, the slot reciever and split end motion into the backfield into a more traditional I-formation, and another reciever goes in motion just before the snap. One of the defenders on the field will then make a call to adjust the defensive play. So, no, knowing the signal does not necessarily imply knowing what the defense will do.
However, the bigger point is one people seem to be missing:
videotaping the defensive signs does not necessarily imply knowing the signal. Every team can see the defensive signals. Every team can take notes. Every team tries to do this. Videotaping it and analyzing the tape gives you a slight edge, maybe, in trying to figure out the signals in the current game, and a definite edge in trying to figure out the signals by the next time you play them (but if this was the case, why the heck were they taping Green Bay’s signals?), but it’s not like they had hidden cameras and microphones planted on the opposing D-coordinator, or like they broke into the other team’s headquarters and stole the playbook. They were (allegedly) using an electronic device to slightly improve their ability to do what every team in the league is capable of and tries to do every game. So I don’t think anyone is suggesting that “stealing” the signals isn’t a big help–I think people, including Aaron, are suggesting that what the Patriots allegedly did (use a video camera to assist in “stealing” the signals) only slightly, if at all, improves your chances of successfully “stealing” them.
:: MJK — 9/13/2007 @ 7:12 pm
Andy (71)
You have a point. However, I would argue, by your definition, that a lot of what every team in the NFL does is “malicious” according to your definition. As I indicated before, it is illegal, according to the NFL rules, for offensive linemen to hold pass rushers. If you get caught, you get a penalty. However, every team in the league coaches their linemen to grab a little, in ways that the officials won’t see or won’t flag. It is illegal, according to NFL rules, to interfere with a receiver. If you get caught, you get a penalty. However, every team in the league coaches their DB’s to bump the recievers as much as they can in ways that won’t get noticed or flagged. In both these cases, teams are flaunting the spirit of the rules, “maliciously”, in order to gain a competitive advantage. I don’t see that this is all that different, except that in those cases there is a very clear punishment for getting caught, and, so far, there isn’t a clearly defined punishment for getting caught with a video camera.
As far as ethics go, consider this case. What if some key player is known to have a recently healed knee injury. He can’t make cuts the way he would if he was healthy. Don’t you think every team in the league would, if they were playing against the injured player, coach their players to use that to their advantage? Furthermore, I bet fully half the teams in the league would even coach their players to, legally, go after the player’s knee whenever possible, in hopes of either knocking him out of the game, or at least shaking his confidence so he plays timidly and less effectively, i.e. with legal low blocks, etc. If you don’t believe that happens every Sunday, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. Anyway, what is ethically more reprehensible…this completely legal behavior, or breaking a rule that says you can’t use a video camera to help try to figure out the other team’s signals?
:: MJK — 9/13/2007 @ 7:21 pm
Brian (72)
Compare the NE records and “DVOA� against teams they’ve played twice in a season.
You might have something, here. I haven’t done this, but it does seem, anecdotally, that New England consistently plays much better against an opponent they face the second time each season (excepting Miami and New York, who have seemed to have New England’s number in second appearances the last couple of years).
Unfortunately (for Patriots haters), this isn’t conclusive proof of a strong ability to “steal” signals–it could also be accounted for by a number of other factors:
(1) more film available for a scheme-focused team like the Patriots to break down
(2) Good conditioning on the part of the Patriots showing
(3) Weather effects (for Pats home games)
And so forth. Probably too many ill-defined variables to correct for.
:: MJK — 9/13/2007 @ 7:24 pm
ESPN is reporting that the fine to Belicheck is a half mil, and the Patriots a quarter. Plus a 1st rounder if the Patriots make the playoffs, a 2 and a 3 if they don’t. I feel comfortable with the punishment. Since I don’t care for the Pats I would have liked to have seen more, but in consideration I think it is a fair and just punishment.
:: Paul — 9/13/2007 @ 9:06 pm
I calculated the difference in the Patriot’s points scored between the 1st and 2nd games against opponents each of the past four seasons. Results are here:
http://www.bbnflstats.com/2007/09/patriots-sign-stealing.html
:: Brian — 9/13/2007 @ 9:43 pm
No one really knows this, but I’ve stolen signs many times. I just do a better job of covering it up because my team always loses, and I make such bad draft picks that I look like an idiot.
:: matt millen\'s brain — 9/13/2007 @ 11:43 pm
MJK #76
“(1) more film available for a scheme-focused team like the Patriots to break down.”
Isn’t that the point?
:: JMM — 9/14/2007 @ 7:16 am