'If they caught Tampa Bay doing this, would people be suggesting that the Bucs' 2002 championship was tainted?'

Doubtful, given the Bucs victory was based on one of the more dominant defenses of the decade.

If they caught Peyton Manning and the Colts doing this, would Aaron Schatz and Bill Simmons be saying that their AFCC victory in January was tainted?

Just as expected, nothing but excuses from the patriot lovers. I think the best part of the article is where you rail on the chargers for a while, and the very next sentence, talk about how everyone loves to hate the patriots. Classy stuff.

I think an appropriate punishment would be for Belichick to have to hug Eric Mangini again, but for real this time.

Over under on comments on this thread is hearby set at 500.

FTR, I think the Broncos and the others do get a free pass for cheating on the cap. Their punishments were extremely light.

For the other teams Simmons names, either their indiscretions have nothing to do with the game (Cowboys) or they were legal at the time (Steelers)

Well I think what Patriots fans percieve as an over reaction has two parts to it aside from the underdog v evil empire mythos.
1. The tip of the iceberg. This is what they've been CAUGHT doing, and the Patriots are obviously a very competent organization, what are they actually getting away with?
2. It was pointless. The Packers and the Jets, when they were clearly struggling. No one respects bullies.

I won't claim to speak for everyone, but while my dislike for the Pats isn't at the same level of irrational hatred as some fans, that dislike stems from a very specific source.

It is not that they win too much, or that they are a better team, or even the amoount of media coverage. It is the idea that they somehow were this "clean cut, do it right, upstanding" group of people that the media and their fans portrayed, when they have done just as many dirty, devious, underhanded things on the field as any other team.

I certainly don't begrudge them the right to act just like everyone else, it's the fact that the media and some of their fans suggest they don't.

So when a story like this comes out, proof that they're just like everyone else, and the media and some of their fans seem so shocked and appalled, those like me that hated the sentiment that THIS team, beyond any other, was above reproach find it more than a little amusing.

5:
Yeah, I don't get the whole drugs and hookers thing as being on par with cheating at all. I mean, if the Bengals won the Super Bowl this year, would anyone consider the victory tainted just because the team has a few bad apples?

Wow. Faint condemnation, denial, rationalization and they-do-it-too-ism.

Almost reads like the thread-which-must-not-be-named, except with Belicheck/Patriots instead of Vick/Falcons.

So disappointing.

This is nothing more than yet another act in the pathetic Patriots-Jets hate-fest that started back when Parcells jumped ship. Since then, both side have behaved like spoiled 12 year old girls endlessly tattleing on the other while trying to steal each other's Barbie dolls. The league needs to punish both teams for being complete wienies.

Being totally cynical, I'm sure the Patriots weren't doing anything every other team isn't already doing. The Jets just blew the whistle on them to gain an upper hand in their wuss-feud. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised by the Jets baiting the Pats by using the same signals as last year just so the mangina could get his panties in a bunch and howl about cheating.

And from now on, whenever any team beats another, we're going to hear the losing coaches howling about the other team stealing their signals using some magic-eye camera or Jedi mind-tricks.

How totally lame. I hope both teams go 1-15.

"group of people that the media and their fans portrayed, "

THe fans dont portray that, its completely created by the media.

"It will be a footnote to the dynasty..."

Yeah, just like Palmeiro getting caught using roids was just a footnote on a hall of fame career.

"When cheating is exposed, teams are punished. You take your punishment like a man, and you move on -- and the fans of the other teams ALSO move on."

I'm not so sure. If I'm not sure that the games being played are on a level field, I'll stop watching. This is the reason I stopped watching the NBA (a long time ago, after that Lakers/Kings playoff game).

"The Patriots were breaking rules because they are obsessed with getting every minor strategic advantage, but that doesn't change the fact the strategic advantage is minor."

The very idea that Aaron knows how much an advantage the Pats gained at this point is laughable. What about the alledged microphone their defensive players have been using? There really isn't enough information available at this point to know how serious the situation is. This preemptive "It's no big deal" article is a joke.

"The idea that suddenly all three Super Bowl championships are tainted is ridiculous."

Well, how do you know they weren't cheating? Maybe Patriots players play so well because they are illegally being fed info, not because Belichek and Pioli are such geniuses. It's too early to rule it out.

How come nobody has suggested the fairly obvious punishment - the Patriots have to forfeit that game? Don't bother messing with future draft picks or salary caps or anything more arcane than this: if you cheat, your team automatically loses.

There's no way for certain that anybody can say that the video wasn't used by the pats.

The camera guy could have changed digital tapes between the 1st and 2nd quarters and given the 1st quarter tape to a runner.

I have to say that while tapegate is troublesome, the rumors (I'll repeat rumors) that the Pats put radio receivers in defensive players' helmets are much much more damaging.

The media isn't the only reason that other NFL fans hate patriot fans.

Patriots fans are another reason that other NFL fans hate patriots fans.

Exhibit A: Bill Simmons, patriot fan.

The pats are accused of cheating, and his article about it includes accusations against other teams for other kinds of cheating, "everybody else does steals signs," "it didn't help that much anyway," and "everybody else is overreacting."

I mean, come on now.

Common sense dictates that stolen signals are useful for mutiple games, for future games with the same opponent. For example, in the 2001 season, before SB36, the Rams played the Pats in NE. So, the Pats had an opportunity to steal signals before SB36. One actually could watch the replay of SB36 and say, "Voila! They cheated! It's all right there."

OF COURSE this whole story makes me even more bitter about the Rams SB 36 loss. What's even worse is that, in light of the worst week 1 in recent memory, the 2007 PFP's 2% Super Bowl Contender for the 2007 Rams seems generous.

re: 15

They could even have it broken down and matched up in between series. Or in between plays if there is a feed to the coaches booth.

If guys were doing it on a weekly basis with binoculars in the 70s, why would they have to wait until halftime to work them out now?

If they caught Peyton Manning and the Colts doing this, would Aaron Schatz and Bill Simmons be saying that their AFCC victory in January was tainted?

Simmons, maybe, but I doubt Aaron, because, if you read what he says in this article and in the previous XP, he is of the opinion that STEALING SIGNALS DOES NOT CONFER ALL THAT MUCH OF AN ADVANTAGE.

I think I agree. After all, aren't defenses supposed to be reactive? Isn't the MLB or SS supposed to take what the DC signals as a suggestion, and then make a defensive call based on that suggestion and what he sees of the offensive alignment? And aren't his signals clearly visible and recordable to anyone who has a Tivo at home?

While I believe the accusations are true, I dont understand how the patriots could keep so many people quiet for this long. I would think many players, coaches, and personnel would have to be invloved (if the defensive miking is to be believed). Maybe this is why the Jets brought in players before the game, rather then stealing there audibles? Massive coverups like this are hard to believe sometimes.

8: Exactly.

Here's a sample of what we're talking about: (link in name)

"If you’re searching for a Patriots-kind of player (Intelligent, tough, versatile, team-first attitude), then look no further than [Wake Forest Safety Josh] Gattis."

This is one of the reasons everyone hates the Patriots. If you can't understand why that is, you too are probably one of the reasons why everyone hates the Patriots.

I don't feel like they got a significant advantage out of this. Honestly, the biggest unfair competitive advantage the Patriots have had recently is Seattle's idiocy from last year. "Sure, we'll deal with your problem player who's holding out into the season, and give you a first-round pick, to boot!"

I do feel like this is tacky, and since they've already been warned about it once, the league needs to come up with a reasonable punishment (a draft pick, 3rd through 5th round, maybe) so we can move on.

Obviously, if there's substance to the radio allegations, those should carry an additional (and much more severe) punishment, but I don't see enough evidence to prove that true, or even likely, at the moment.

5 - Good point. The Cowboys did nothing to enhance their on field performance. If anything, wouldn't spending the week having all night coke parties screw you up for Sunday? The Cowboys winning despite all the drugs and hookers is an accomplishment.

OMO should repost his amusing Patriots rant/poem here.

1. I think people would be a lot less upset if the Patriots came out and admitted what they did in public.
So far, they haven't.
It sounds like they are cheating and lying,
I am not saying they are doing this, but that's how it comes across.
2. Maybe I am very naive, but does Tony Dungy do this?
I am thinking no way, I could be wrong, who knows?

silliness. no one will be talking about this in 2 weeks. I'm already at who gives a sh!t status. All teams make a habit of stealing signs. BB used a camera. I know this sounds like murder now but it will subside.

"If they caught Tampa Bay doing this, would people be suggesting that the Bucs’ 2002 championship was tainted?"

It's not an analogous situation, but I thought it was established that part of the reason the Bucs humiliated the Raiders so thoroughly was that they hadn't bothered to change their offensive audibles since Gruden's departure. Now, that certainly doesn't "taint" the championship, but it does put an asterisk next to that particular defensive performance.

"If they caught Peyton Manning and the Colts doing this, would Aaron Schatz and Bill Simmons be saying that their AFCC victory in January was tainted?"

Heh, Simmons would *never* have shut up about that.

For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of the Patriots and I can't get too worked up about this. (If I were a Jets fan, maybe...) Stealing signs, or figuring out another team's playcalling system, is good strategy if you can do it; using a camera was just one step over the line separating "gamesmanship" from "espionage". (But asking a former player would presumably be OK, right?) Take away a couple of their draft picks and let's get on with the season.

Sweet! A Patriot story.

re: 20

Fair enough.
In that case though,where there is no real advantage, it means Belichick is taking such a stupid risk, by exposing his team to the wrath of the league office and destroying his own and his franchises reputation, that I don't see how he ever became a HC in the first place, let alone won 3 superbowls.

Surely this is a case of a team crossing a line not blowing it out of the water. They should get punished and they will. Thankfully that punishment isn't going to be decided on by Patriot haters or Patriot lovers so it should be fair.

A few points after reading it:

1 - I was actually very interested in the takes of Schatz and Simmons, mainly because you two are Pats fans. While I defiantly think that Schatz is the more level headed of the two in terms of being fair (what with looking at numbers rather than being a boston sports homer) Simmons has frequently shown willing to at least consider the outside world. And in that I feel you're a pair of Pats fans who are often fair to the rest of the world, it's reasonable for all us not pats fans to listen to your takes and be fair to you.

2 - I've stayed away from most of the comments on sports reporting sites because they tend to be stupid. The level of the reaction that's often seen comes from the people who want to get noticed more often (I feel) and so take more extreme positions. The reasonable types often don't say much. The hew and cry of the public (in the form of messages/replies to stories) is often over-representative of those with an extreme position. The hew and cry of journalists (I feel) is often a matter of niche-carving where saying the normal (they stole some signs, meh, look at all the other things that have been done, lets not jump overboard here) doesn't get you noticed when you're the 20th internet sports writer to say it. SO BAN THEM, LET THEM BURN! etc etc.

3 - As for the crime and punishment, I guess before I say that I should say I'm a Colts fan, the crime was videotaping signals (so far as published reports citing NFL sources say). The REAL crime was getting caught. As many people have pointed out, coaches cover their mouths for a reason - and while it may not have been video tape but binoculars, so this isn't exactly surprising in what was happening but how. For punishment I'd offer the Pats an option, were I Goodell, either the pats forfeit a second round choice in next year's draft, or the pats privately provide him enough evidence of who ordered the taping, and that person be fined whatever amount the NFL deems fit to meet the crime (such as the average rookie signing amount and bonus from a late second round pick). In the first case the team can protect whom it wishes if they don't want public scrutiny on the individual, sacrificing a draft pick that's valuable enough to actually hurt to lose. If they do want to go public, and have the positive public feedback of actually taking responsibility for their actions they can choose the second route, pay the fine and keep the draft pick.

4 - Interesting convo, and from his writing, I must say I feel you, Aaron, have had a noticeable effect on Simmons' writing.

5 - Sorry for going on so long.

6 - Happy Ramadan and Rosh Hashanah to those that practice them.

Everything about the Patriots seems to make people too emotional, so I wish fans would take a step back and ask 'How would I feel about this if the Jacksonville Jaguars had been caught doing it?'

And if the Jags had recently won three super bowls and had one of the top coaches in the league, that would be a valid point.

I also disagree that the Bucs or Jacksonville are appropriate comparisons. The Pats have been consistent winners since 2000. If it came out that the Colts or Eagles were doing this, I think the uproar would be just as big. If it came out that the Bucs were, I think people would mostly find it laughable that they still couldn't manage to field a winning team for several of those seasons.

That said, I think that a day 1 draft pick and/or minor suspension of BB would be appropriate at this stage. If they get a stern slap on the wrist, that's okay too. I will be up in arms over this if it comes out that the "RF disturbances" were a result of (a) wired defensive players or (b) stealing other offenses' audio signals, though.

I don't understand why people aren't suggesting that the Jets game be forfeited.

You still have to do something else (you don't want to say 'if you cheat, make sure you lose!') but seriously: the Patriots were caught manipulating a game. Why aren't people suggesting they forfeit that game?

The fact that it wasn't close is immaterial. In college football, if you play with an ineligible player, you forfeit those games (technically, you're stripped of those wins).

I don't even think it's that serious a punishment. I certainly can't understand how it wouldn't be fair. I mean, taking away draft picks, fine, but what if that was the Super Bowl? Would the threat of taking away draft picks really stop you from doing it?

Keep in mind the refs can, in fact, declare a forfeit in the case of "palpably unfair acts." If the refs had seen the video camera, they would've been fully within their rights to declare the game forfeited by New England.

POLITICAL POST DELETED.

If this was not much of a competitive advantage (which I agree with), why would the Patriots still do it, even after previously being warned not to? That makes me think that there might be more of an advantage gained than I realize.

I don't know why so many people believe that Belichick suddenly turned into an idiot. Isn't the more reasonable explanation that they did, in fact, gain something by doing this?

I would like to apologize to Richie.

My opinion on forfeits: If you could catch them and penalize them for signal-stealing during the game, then there'd be no call to penalize them retroactively afterward. But obviously that's not going to happen - it's taking a good week to sort out the penalty for something that was caught during the game. Given the choice between retroactive penalties and letting tainted results stand, I'll take the forfeits.

#35: Okay, I get that. But nothing's going to change the fact that the Patriots did win that game. The game itself still exists. It's just that the Patriots record should say "0-1" and the Jets should say "1-0".

Any other punishment will never be a sufficient deterrent. That's why the "palpably unfair acts" rule is in there. If the Raiders send out Lane Kiffin to break Peyton Manning's knees during a Raiders-Colts game, that might be the only way the Raiders win, and you wouldn't say "darn you, Lane Kiffin! We're suspending you for three games and taking away draft picks (but yeah, you beat the Colts)." No - the refs would declare the game forfeited.

Wow. I hate the Pats (I'm a Dolphins fan, ffs!), but some of you and most of the media just have bloodlust right now. The excuse for the media is obvious, they feed off these kind of stories. What's yours?

"Pats should forfeit the game!"
"Belicheck should be fired!"
"The dynasty is tainted!"

Please. Take their first or second round pick and be done with it. Almost every team tries to steal signals in EVERY sports league, starting in little league. The pats used a video camera to help do so, which is against NFL rules. Fine. Guilty. But why do you want the death penalty for something that might not even give any competitive advantage? Anything beyond a high draft pick and/or 1-2 game suspension for Belicheck just wouldn't fit the crime.

By the way, if we're going after the Pats, I wish Goodell had been around when the Patriots intentionally let their field go to complete crap in the playoffs to negate opposing players' speed. THAT was a competetive advantage, and a dangerous one at that.

A couple of my thoughts from the other thread (sorry for the repeat)

Thinking about how this could work, one guy films the defensive signals, the video is transmitted to some guy sat in front of a computer (using one of the unauthorised radio frequencies) who looks through each signal and tries to seperate each component of the ’semaphore’ and logs each set of signals against the play. Meanwhile one or two guys in the coaches box enter what happened in the defensive scheme onto a database, ie 43over, sam blitz, man cover, dl slnt rht, safeties 2over (or some other set of parameters that would actually apply to football) or just compared the plays to previously identified plays form the weeks scouting. Then you have approx 90mins to match up parts of the signals to the plays run. If you got good at it 90 minutes would be a long time. After two and a half hours you could probably have most of the signals down. Bear in mind you can prioritise which parts you want to decipher first, and that there are only so many things you can do with your arms while keeping each part of the signal distinct and each action has to be performed quickly to have any point at all. Also the information would only be arriving when one team has the ball. You might get 10 to 15 minutes between drives.

What the hell do you think the other owners think about this? Their teams have been placed at a competitive disadvantage by the Patriots cheating.

first, you gotta love that Bill Simmons writes of the Pats as "we."

Second, this is as good a place as any to clarify why I'm sick of the Pats. I'm sick of deifying someone (Belichik) who's been good but also stupefying lucky. Is he a very good coach? Sure, of course. But he also got hella lucky to win that first super bowl, got incredibly lucky to win so many close games en route to the second super bowl (check out your writing on guts vs stomps!) and finally, and most importantly, got incredibly lucky on Tom Brady. Is Belichik a genius be/c he had a 7th round flyer sitting on his bench that only got to play b/c Bledsoe got hurt?

People who lionize Belichik would be well served to read "Fooled by Randomness." It's only 20 games to super bowl champ and with so few events, you're gonna draw some pretty lousy conclusions if all that you measure is "did they win the super bowl." Same reason why all those high priced FA signings from super bowl champs and head coach hires from super bowl coordinators have such a low hit rate...

#37: I don't think so, no. To me, Belichick's obviously got obsessive behavior - hence the media behavior, hence the injury reports, etc.

I mean, you hear people in sports stick to wild and crazy ideas like wearing the same socks all season. These guys don't rigorously test all of their ideas. If they are winning, they keep doing it.

" Unless you want to retroactively remove Gaylord Perry from the Baseball Hall of Fame and force the San Diego Chargers to forfeit any game Shawne Merriman played before his positive steroids test last year.

Simmons: Merriman had a positive steroids test last year? Whaaaaaaaat??? I thought LaDainian 'I stole Lawrence Taylor's nickname' Tomlinson just told us the Patriots were the cheaters. I'm so confused. The next thing you're going to tell me is that Luis Castillo failed a steroids test right before the 2005 draft or something."

Did anyone notice this, the irony of Rodney Harrison almost came through the computer and hit me.

This article is like watching the Iraqi information minister talk to himself.

What I find particularly entertaining is the constant assertion by Patriots fans that this provides a minimal advantage.

So, despite receiving a DIRECT warning from the league officiating office that they were violating the rules, they kept doing it knowing that they would face big penalties if caught. Because it was almost completely devoid of value. To the organization everyone is quick to proclaim as the smartest in football.

Makes perfect sense. The infidels are being driven back from the gates of Foxborough as we speak.

44:

Well, yeah, but you don't risk significant penalty and damage to your reputation by wearing the same socks all year.

In regards to Bill Simmon's link to the Rick Reilly article where Shanahan "admits" he uses lipreaders... I'm not denying the possibility that Shanahan uses lipreaders, but can you please find me ONE credible source on the subject? And no, a SATIRICAL article that features *NUMEROUS FABRICATED QUOTES* does not count as a credible source. I mean, Bill Simmons is actually citing a quote in an article that blatantly fabricated numerous quotes as if it's some sort of proof of anything. If Shanahan really said that, I'm sure there'd be at least one other source out there reporting it. Good luck trying to find it. I'm almost certain that Shanahan's "admission" that he uses lipreaders is a total farce, which totally pokes holes in the "everyone does it" theory.

Re #6: It’s absolutely disgraceful that Tagliabue was so soft on the Broncos for cheating on the salary cap. I’m a Tagliabue fan, but I think Goodell has a better attitude toward discipline and will not let the Pats off as easily as Tagliabue let the Broncos off.

There is a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE difference between what the Broncos did and what the Patriots are accused of doing. The official NFL statement on Denver's salary cap violations was that they were "plainly designed to help the club cope with seasonal cash flow problems exacerbated by the Broncos' need to fund front-end expenditures associated with development of the new stadium in Denver."

In other words, the league ruled that it was CLEARLY EVIDENT that the violations were done with neither maliciousness nor intent to gain a competitive advantage. I suppose you could argue back and forth whether a competitive advantage was actually gained (personally, I don't think Elway was playing any harder because, instead of getting his paycheck, depositing it, and letting it accrue interest for a year, he got his paycheck a year later with a year's worth of interest), but that's entirely irrelevant. Denver did not cheat in an effort to gain a competitive advantage, they cheated because their owner was broke and it was the only way for them to honor their financial obligations. New England cheated MALICIOUSLY in an effort to gain a competitive advantage. In my mind, comparing New England's fiasco to Denver's is like comparing homicide to criminal negligence. The result might have been the same (again, I don't think it was, but for the sake of argument...), but the intent was miles apart.

Re #24: 2. Maybe I am very naive, but does Tony Dungy do this?
I am thinking no way, I could be wrong, who knows?

Tony Dungy may look like Ghandi and talk like Ghandi, but he's no saint. Check his injury reports from last season and see if you're still of the opinion that he's above violating the spirit of rules, if not the letter, for even a ludicrously small competitive advantage. In addition, there have been accusations that his defensive line coach teaches his players to intentionally injure, and that he illegally piped crowd noise through the speaker systems against Pittsburgh, among other things. His closet isn't nearly as clean as everyone seems to believe.

The Pats have won three Superbowls by very narrow margins, and they have probably been cheating for all of them. It's a real shame, I used to really admire their professionalism but now the championships will always be tainted in my mind. The argument that 'everybody does it' is the same wretched excuse used by steroid cheats. If the information gained wasn't helping them win then they wouldn't have bothered to collect it. The Pats will have won games that they otherwise would have lost and opposing players and coaches have suffered as a result (Schottenheimer lost his job because he couldn't win in the plyoffs after losing a close game to the Pats). Peyton Manning for example is more open to his signals being recorded by microphones in DL's pads than any other player and he acquired a reputation as a chocker because he couldn't beat the Pats. The fine should be at least a 1st rounder.

47: I wouldn't be so sure about that.

ALRIGHT, EVERYONE LISTEN

1 - Fans like their team, they will defend their team against attacks from the outside. You do it too.

2 - The Patriots' efforts to gain competitive edges, including stealing signals, is what makes them better. Also included in "gaining a competitive edge" are more significant factors like intense training, preparation, and hard work.

3 - Quit whining! Don't worry about what the Patriots do! Just stop! It's a goddamned game!

Also included in “gaining a competitive edge� are more significant factors like intense training, preparation, and hard work.
And, if push comes to shove, firebombing the opposing team's home city.

Disclaimer: Pats fan.

I'm not sure if this whole thing is being blown up or not, but what concerns me are the rumors that the Pats had defenders with radios in their helmets, and that the D-linemen wore mikes to pick up the opposing QB's audibles. I agree there should be punishment for what happened. I am in favor of suspending Belicheck for at least one game and fining him, as well as confiscating the tapes and recordings the Pats currently have . If they have been recording opponents for years, these tapes would show that and prove everything. If/when these rumors are proven, then there should be serious consequences. If all the rumors are true about how Belicheck has been operating, I think a multi-season/lifetime ban wouldn't be out of the question.

As for punishing the organization, I'd say that depends on how many people actually knew about it. If it was Belicheck and a few coaches, I'd say go light on the team. If it was widespread and everyone from Kraft down to the practice squad was in on it, then there should be a huge penalty.

I'm reserving judgment until more details come out. All we know is that they recorded signals. Cheating, but not as bad as the other rumors. I personally want to see exactly what they were doing and how many were involved before crucifying the team. However, if all the rumors were true, and the whole team was in on it, then I am finding a new team to be a fan of, because that is disgusting.

What I said on another thread, when someone asked what other teams were thinking about the Pats:
"I hope that Randy Moss doesn't know my signals; he'll still beat me, but it would be embarrassing to know that he knew my signals as he blows by me for yet another TD"

Remember when Jim Haslett admitted to using steroids when he was playing for the Pittsburgh Steelers during their dynasty years of the '70s?

Uh, no. I remember Haslett said that when he was taking steroids as a member of the Bills, he was trying to keep up with the Steelers.

So far, the Patriots are handling this poorly. You meet charges of cheating with contrition, openness, and transparency. "Here's what we did. We're sorry. We accept the league's authority and welcome whatever ruling they make. We are eager to learn from this and move on." Instead, they've provided surliness. That's not gonna' work. They might still turn this around with their response after the league finally issues a ruling. But so far, they've only fueled the ire of their detractors and left their supporters waiting for clarity.

Oh, so now you're censoring us? That's exactly what the republicans wanted when... uhh, never mind.

I thought all our Championships were already tainted?

01 - tuck rule gate
03 - fake injury ploy by McGinnest in Indy, first Mugging of Indy WRs in playoffs
04 - more WR muggings to the point where the league changes rule emphasis.

My problem with Simmons is, why the HELL do you care? Being a winner is being hated. I certainly hated the Cowboys, 49ers, and Raiders with a passion.

I'm not a Patriots fan, and can't stand all of the "Patriot Way" crap that gets pushed down our throats by ESPN and the like.

That being said, who cares? Is anyone really surprised by this? I guess the only way this would matter is to disillusion a Patriots fan naive enough to think they were more "moral" than everyone else, or "allowing" someone to participate in some lame name-calling homerism. They broke the rules to gain a competitive advantage, and got caught. Now Goodell will have to find a reasonable punishment untainted by, "haha, they got caught, let's see how much we can screw 'em". /rant

Shana Tova to Aaron and everyone else.

If Goodell did not specifically threaten a severe penalty for continued offenses in this area in his warning letter, he made a mistake. I think if everbody was on notice that any violation meant the forfeiture of an entire year's draft, they would be extremely unlikely to violate the rule, and if they weren't, they are too damned stupid to coach in the league.

I can't speak to the accuracy of kibbles' description of the Broncos' cap violation, but I really don't care about motivation in this area. Any willful violation of cap rules should result in at least the forfeiture of a year's draft, with more than one year's draft for egregious cases.

"How would I feel about this if the Jacksonville Jaguars had been caught doing it?"

Well I know I wouldn't be reading back-to-back EP articles about it, that's for sure.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

Come on guys...stop over-focusing on the Pats. Now, read these two Pats-defending EP articles posted by me back-to-back.

Oh...I guess that only applies to "Patriots-haters"...not the Pats fan base.

That being said...I do want to compliment both of you for at least waiting a few paragraphs before you turned the linked article into a Chargers, Patriots-haters blamefest.

That must have taken real restraint and control.

I especially like this exchange:

"This does really ruin Sunday night's great game, doesn't it? I like stats, and I like X's and O's. That's what I write about because that's what I care about, and I don't want to spend the next month talking about this stupid camera."

Followed by:

"I feel the same way about giving the Patriots-haters something to sink their teeth into. It upsets me."

Classic. Forget the actual organization who can't follow the rules who created this media circus...it's those darn "Patriots-haters" who are to blame for ruining the game.

Well...at least non-Pats fans of this site have learned something from this event. Any "attempt" by Football Outsiders.com to not be a pro-Pats site can officially be viewed as "null and void".

Nice job of prostituting out your website for your favorite team. Hope it was worth it.

The way I read it, New England teams have always cheated in every sport, and Simmons is fine with it. No wonder I never read his columns.

P.S. I don't hate the Pats, just their fans. They're some bizarre combination of the Red Sox fan's self-loathing and the Yankee fan's arrogance.

Long post?
Scroll down.
OMO? Skip.

As a fan of a player whose "greatness" has been shoved down the public's throat I am vaguely aware of the "just go away and I will be glad when you stink" I followed this discussion with great interest.

Being disappointed in the lack of anything beyond rationalizations I will simply state that I am surprised that the two were so alike in their mindset.

When Wisconsin coach Brett Bielama exploited a college football rule, didn't break but leveraged in a manner that was deemed "unsporting", FO author Russell Levine branded him a douchebag and stated he should be sanctioned.

Bill - I think it's a good comparison, but if you want to tamper down political comparisons, it's awfully tough when "WATERGATE" is right in the extra point title.

OK, I know you've all been desperatly waiting for my take on all of this, so here she goes...
What's the big deal? coaches and players routinely use film study to tip off plays etc. This seems to be a natural extension of that. Also, as they didn't do anything a hyper organized fan with binoculars and a clipboard couldn't have done right?
Does it seem like the natural progression to this is earphones in all helmets? or does that change the game too much for the powers that be?

re: 45

Rodney Harrison, and also the inability to recognise the difference between individual and organizational cheating.

Re: #67

That's been my question, too.

Yes, the Pats should be punished because the rule is on the books and they broke it.

But what exactly is the league trying to prevent by the rule? What's so specifically bad about stealing signs with videotape (after all, stealing signs by other means isn't against the rules) that it needs to be banned? And if the answer to that is simply "it makes it a lot easier to steal signs", then my question becomes what's so specifically bad/harmful to the game about stealing signs?

Disclaimer: The following comes from a Pats fan.

You know, given the vitriol, I think they should just disband the Patriots, and erase all mention of them from the record books. It's the ONLY WAY to be sure to erase any record of them possibly cheating.

:p

On a serious note, yeah, this was stupid, and they'll be punished. Simple as that. It's not like they were breaking into Jets HQ. They had a video trained on a coach during the game, which was against the rules. Instead of just having someone watch him and write it down, which would've been PERFECTLY legal. So... I don't see where they are getting this 'tainted legacy' from, honestly.

There should be more outrage from Bellicheck worshipers. This is cheating. That's all it is. Cheating is wrong. This is cheating. There's no wiggle room, this is worse than Bengals players getting arrested for DUIs or the Titan's drafting Pac Man Jones, this is cheating, from the top down. A year suspension for BB and the forfieture of the Jets game would send a nice message to the rest of the league.

I like how the article is a laundry list of complaints against other teams. "Wahhh" is pretty much all I took from that section.

I think that Belichick took this risk because of the game within the game. He not only wants to beat the Jets on the scoreboard, he wants to beat Mangini in ways that are so subtle that only the two of them will ever know about it. I'm reminded of a game played by the replacement players in '87. It was the 49ers and the Giants. The 49ers started running the option and had great success as the Giants had obviously not prepared for anything like it. Parcells looked over at Walsh and gave him an appreciative smirk.

What are the suggested and, then of those, viable penalties for the Patriots?

Forfiting the Jets Game.
Forfiture of draft picks.Playoff ban for 2 years. (Terrell Davis)
Suspension of Belicheck.
Loss of access to "coaches film" for some period of time.

POLITICAL POST DELETED.

POLITICAL POST DELETED AGAIN.

POLITICAL POST DELETED. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU.

#69

They're trying to limit the use of technology in the game.
It can't just be a free-for-all with radios in helmets, mikes on d-linemen, mic'd up QBs or whatever else teams will think of.
Given the amount of money at stake, it'll start an arms race and detract from the sport.

Well…at least non-Pats fans of this site have learned something from this event. Any “attempt� by Football Outsiders.com to not be a pro-Pats site can officially be viewed as “null and void�.

Nice job of prostituting out your website for your favorite team. Hope it was worth it.

You do realize, OMO, that of the Outsiders listed in the FO FAQ, only Aaron Schatz and Bill Moore are actually Patriots fans? That's not exactly a fertile breeding ground for rampant Patriots homerism. There are as many Jets fans on that list, and we all know how much they want to line up to defend the Pats now.

And really, even if Aaron really were being a blatant homer (which I seriously doubt), and posted two freakin' extra points for no other reason than to relieve some of his unhappiness about the recent "scandal," fine. I wouldn't even blame him.

It's not like he brought the entire website to a grinding halt just to whine about people being mean to his favorite team. He posted links to a couple articles, ones that many of us actually wanted to see, and in one of them, he shared his opinion on the event, an opinion that many of us wanted to hear. What's so wrong with that?

I mean, I hate the Patriots as much as the next guy, but really, get a grip, man. They cheated, then got caught, and now they'll get punished for it. Then, maybe, life can continue, and we can go back to watching football again. In the meantime, go take a cold shower or something.

Has any Patriots fan tried to say they weren't cheating? Or that they don't deserve any punishment?

Namely, can we burn up that straw man yet?

I do find it humorous that two intelligent, prominent Pats fans fail to see that they're only making things worse by trying to downplay it.

(NOTE: Below, I'm not comparing this crime to Vick's.)

Did it help when other NFL players tried to defend Vick? They just came across like clueless, insensitive jerks.

Let the team/guy under attack and neutral 3rd parties respond. If you're a fan of the team/player in question, then anything you say will be viewed as biased and hypocritical.

Either the majority will eventually get sick of the story and/or come to the same conclusion, or they won't. You're just feeding the story.

LOL!

" Unless you want to retroactively remove Gaylord Perry from the Baseball Hall of Fame and force the San Diego Chargers to forfeit any game Shawne Merriman played before his positive steroids test last year."

IGNORANCE IS BLISS.

Merriman tested positive in the pre-season. Go ahead, forfeit them! He was clean all season with very frequent tests.

This is the most moronic article I've seen a F.O. Staffer be a part of.

The analogies were bad, and there was a LOT of bias (more Simmons, but ...)

#46 - "This article is like watching the Iraqi information minister talk to himself."

Freaking Hilarious!

Maybe this explains why a guy who was a miserable failure as a HC in Cleveland suddenly became the Infallible Creator of The Patriot Way?

Oh, and the article was biased. If you would have asked me before I read it, I would have said Simmons would be the illogical Pats defender, and Aaron would be the more reasonable.

I got those flipped.

Of course it doesn't make the Super Bowls tarnished, but to basically say that if you think it mattered it's because you hate the Patriots is crazy.

It mattered. It was wrong. The Coach should be suspended one game, and we should all move on.

There should be more outrage from Bellicheck worshipers. This is cheating. That’s all it is. Cheating is wrong. This is cheating. There’s no wiggle room, this is worse than Bengals players getting arrested for DUIs

Okay, this is over the line. DUIs put people's lives at risk.

No one cares about my opinion, I am sure, but I'm giving it anyway.

As a Steelers fan, I obviously am not biased for the Patriots. If anything, I'm jealous of the recent success that has shut the Steelers down in the playoffs. Furthermore, they clearly broke the rules the NFL has set forth and deserve to be punished. And probably harshly, as an example to any other teams that do this.

But seriously, until someone shows be conclusive evidence that defensive signals they stole led directly to repeated victories in the playoffs, I will be skeptical that their Super Bowl wins are in any way tainted.

Did they cheat? Most assuredly. Should they be punished? Absolutely. Has it been proven that said cheating has led to multiple victories over a series of seasons? No. Not yet, anyway. Wake me if that ever is proven though.

Short post with no redeeming value, specifically attacking OMO? Scroll down.

Starshatterer? Skip.

Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the "Patriot Haters" are overreacting, but ... then the "Patriot Defenders" have just returned in kind and overreacted to that.

What a mess.

There will be a penalty. It should be harsh and be enough to make teams think twice before breaking rules that are there for a reason. (a spy-game arms race would F-up the game; it must be kept within bounds). I'm sure other teams cheat too, but who knows how far each team goes.
Some rule changes might result from this too...

"What’s so wrong with that?

I'm not the one that has made an "attempt" to pass off the site as not Pats-biased for many, many months...Aaron has.

This incident and these "rationalizing, defending and deflecting" EP articles have shown me, that the "attempt" was nothing more than a sham.

As Aaron said...would we have this much focus (i.e., 2 consecutive "rationalizing, defending and deflecting" EP articles back-to-back if this were the Jags?

I don't think so.

I thought the article itself was a little depressing, I expected a lot more from Aaron (I really mean that last statement as a weird compliment, he's created a great website/book/system that has changed the way the media covers football for the better). Two Pats homers defending pretty reprehensible behaviour. I doubt that I'm the only fan that wishes that all the cheating, of any type, would go away and I'm pretty annoyed at a coach that made things worse. Make the punishment significant, please.

P.S. What does Shana Tova mean?

Well said Randy S

Well, if nothing else, the league is happy that:

1) This happened in week 1, rather than say when the pats are 8-0

2) The game was a blowout. If they'd won a nail biter people could make a legit case that they should forfeit.

Could someone please explain to me how Norm MacDonald humiliated Elway at the Espy's?

Just to be clear Haslett never played for the Steelers. He played for the Bills and then the Jets. He was a DC for the Steelers in the 90's. So please don't pull the Steelers of the 70's into the tawdry bullshit of the Pats in the 00's.

Do I think the Pats should be burned at the stake? No, I don't. Do I think Belichick should be characterized as he actually is, an extremely smart competetive guy that doesn't mind breaking the rules to win. Absolutely.

I'm pretty darn sick of hearing about this site's Patriot bias. Gosh darn that Ned Macey! All he does is gush about the Pats. That Michael David Smith is such a punk, always going on and on about the virtues of the Pats. Bill Barnwell's name might as well be "Patz Homerr". I hear that Mike Tanier once went as Tom Brady for Halloween. What a jerk.

Yeah, the Pats got caught doing something they should not have done. I'll freely admit that I'm not exactly proud to be a Pats fan right now, but this broken record stuff about FO being run exclusively by Pats fans is just so much irrational complaining.

Randy S (#86 )--

Prosey-poetic style,
Adds value!
Don't like?
I'm heartbroken.

OMO (#88 )--

You seem agitated.

If you feel the site is biased, there's always the "close" box atop your browser.

Or skip the EP articles written by those wicked, bad, Patriot fans. They have this byline, see, which lets you keep your blodd pressure down, by avoiding those horrible, horrible Patriot stories written by people who (inexplicably, I know) like the team.

#88:
I'm sure if something like this happened to, say, the Colts, and Ned Macey or Will Carroll wanted to link to an extra point or two about it and discuss what happened, we'd see some Colts extra points.

And I'd have no problem with that. Even if they offered a few lame rationalizations about why it was no big deal that Peyton Manning broke the rules by wearing a fake mustache to confuse the defense in their 42-17 victory over Houston.

I mean, of course Aaron is biased towards the Patriots, they're his favorite team! They wouldn't be his favorite team if he weren't a little partial to them. But what's important, wrt this site, is that Aaron's stats are not biased towards the Patriots, or any other team.

Honestly, man, you're acting like FO has suddenly turned into Cold Hard Football Facts. The sky is not falling.

"Patriots fans are another reason that other NFL fans hate patriots fans.

Exhibit A: Bill Simmons, patriot fan. "

You do realize, that Bill Simmons, is media, right?

At least we're all getting some enjoyment out of arguing about it, right? That's what being a sports fan is all about.

I have no emotional attachment to the New England Patriots. I'm kind of fond of their refreshingly intelligent franchise management in an age dominated by idiots running sports teams... but it gives me no pleasure or pain when they win and lose.

There is, and has been, a rule stating that you are not allowed to videotape an opponent's signals. The Patriots, it has been reported in several places, have been quietly reminded of this rule several times in the recent past when opponents complained. The Patriots clandestinely had a low-ranking coach videotape the Jets' signals, and when you're sneaking around, it means you know you're doing something you're not supposed to be doing.

Reasonable punishment--not the death penalty, but strong enough to be a deterrent--is forfeiture of last week's game (all stats stand, but the official game score is changed to 1-0 Jets) and forfeiture of their first-round pick in next year's draft.

"Has it been proven that said cheating has led to multiple victories over a series of seasons? No. Not yet, anyway. Wake me if that ever is proven though."

Though I can't scientifically prove how many games BB cheated to win, I think the reason why he got caught is pretty obvious. Mangini used to work for him 2 years ago. It is a reasonable inference that BB has had this system in place for at least a couple of years. I'm not going to jump the gun and say how many victories are tainted because we don't know much about this situation at this point. But for people who are equally uniformed to say that this had no impact on their recent run of success is really quite silly.

(i.e., 2 consecutive “rationalizing, defending and deflecting” EP articles back-to-back if this were the Jags?

Of course not. Del Rio's idea of gaining an advantage involves his kicker and an axe.

Seriously, instead of stupidly talking about whether or not the site has a Pats bias, can we talk about the actual deed involved? The 2 EP! argument is just nuts. This is the biggest story in the NFL right now. If there weren't at least an EP or two, you'd be claiming they were trying to cover it up. How do I know? Before they were posted, someone was complaining.

i know i'm kinda repeating myself here, but they won't ever catch the colts cheating: polian will choke the witnesses first.

Reasonable punishment–not the death penalty, but strong enough to be a deterrent–is forfeiture of last week’s game (all stats stand, but the official game score is changed to 1-0 Jets) and forfeiture of their first-round pick in next year’s draft.
Forfeit the one game we know they couldn't possibly have used the tape in, since it was confiscated in the middle of the first quarter. And a first-round pick?

That sounds reasonable. Compared to "Disband the franchise, erase all team records, ban all the players for life, and shoot Belichick," I guess.

"this broken record stuff about FO being run exclusively by Pats fans"

And where was this stated?

Since it's a broken record...I'm sure you will have no trouble pointing it out with all the repeated "exclusively by Pats fans" comments.

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Re #69:

Whatever the value of using video to steal signs actually is, the league has banned it. Further, they made a point of emphasizing this during the off-season, and there was no backlash, from Foxborough or anywhere else. The Pats' insistence on going ahead anyway leads me to believe that they find this video to be extremely useful.

Re #89:

What does Shana Tova mean?

Hebrew for Happy New Year, which is celebrated today on the Jewish calendar.

Star...thanks for your concern.

One question...exactly how are you sure what I've written with all your "skipping" around my
posts?

OMO, to clarify, I meant that some people some to think that the writers of FO in general are biased towards the patriots. Of course, they aren't.

Uh...you're welcome.

OMO, please stop for your own sake and everybody elses. You are just embarassing yourself more and more with every passing comment.

"But what’s important, wrt this site, is that Aaron’s stats are not biased towards the Patriots, or any other team."

And exactly how many of Aaron's stats did you see in the Simmons/Aaron article?

And what purpose did they serve in the EP article previous to that?

I don't disagree with the immense value of Aaron's stats...and I've NEVER had a problem with them (search any of my posts...it's never happened, I've never done the "my team is too low DVOA crap", for example)...it's the other stuff that I have issues with.

42.

Jimmy, you're missing the point. The constraint to figuring out calls isnt time. Time is immaterial. You need a significant number of PLAYS before you can start figuring out codes. There aren't enough plays in the first half for this to be useful within the span of a game.

Its like figuring out a logic problem. You have to eliminate a significant amount of possibilities before you can say one is correct. Thats not about time, its about pieces of data, and you need a significant amounts of plays (30+) before you can even start trying to decode the signals.

As for Simmons, for the sports guy he sure doesn't know much about NFL history. Even if we concede the Steelers were using steroids, because his source Jim Haslett said so (eventhough he immediately retracted his statements), steroids were not a banned substance by the NFL until 1983. Yep, they didn't start testing until 1987 sooooo what exactly would you strip the Steeler's Superbowl rings for?

RE: 48
The Colts were not exactly accused of piping in crowd noise. That was the biggest non-story of all time. What the reporter said at the time was that the Colts played loud music and noise between plays (which is legal) and that he couldn't be sure if the noise stopped when the play started (which would be illegal). No one actually said, "I heard the Colts illegally produce noise". For some reason, this became a huge story. Since then, every few months some moron brings it up like was a proven fact when it wasn't even an actual allegation. It was just Ed Warner wondering out loud. Anyone at that game, or any Colts game can tell you there has never been pumped in crowd noise. That crowd is insanely loud due to a ridiculously small building and a lot of people yelling. As for the injury reporting, give me a break. Belichick started that one. The Colts stopped reporting injuries as a protest to what the Pats did, hoping that the league would tighten the rules. I'd classify that more as a political protest than a rules violation. Finally, any and all of those types of decisions rest with Bill Polian (who I wouldn't put anything past).

Knowing if the D will blitz or not, be in zone or man have to be helpfull if only for a play or two.

Recording and studing rather than realtime would make the process much more effective.

To say studying film of signals rather than watching in real time isn't helpful is naive.

The punishment should be directed at the guilty. Either Belicheck, or Kraft should be suspended.

Rich,

Lets assume that the Pats are looking for situations where the weak side LB blitzes.

If it happens 3 times in the first half and the same hand signal is associated with that blitz...there's your validation. You really don't need any more than that.

Or a line stunt. Or a two-deep safety coverage. These are not unique events and in the course of 35 offensive plays that the Pats ran in the first half of the Jets game...can you see that a wide-side LB blitz (for example) could happen 3 times in a half?

Not only is it likely...it's almost a certainity that SOME patterns could be identified and tagged to a hand signal.

OMO (#106 )--

I'm helpful that way.

As for "how exactly," you can't actually skip the first few lines. But when they start out something like:
“How would I feel about this if the Jacksonville Jaguars had been caught doing it?�

Well I know I wouldn’t be reading back-to-back EP articles about it, that’s for sure.

The hypocrisy is staggering.
...and go on for 30-40 more lines, I just glance to the bottom. If your screen name is there, I can skip the rest; it'll be all about how bad the Pats, their fans, FO, etc. are. Which I've read from you many times over the past few years. You do like to work that theme, so I'm comfortable just taking the next few paragraphs as a given.

Bonus helpful tip: for those who like to skip my posts, I try to keep the "Screen name (post number) --" format on top. Sometimes I forget, or I'm not replying, but it's usually a good way to skip over my stuff without having to read more than a line, if you really want.

Can anybody be surprised at the tenor of this article given its premise? When you set out to see if two Pats fans can make themselves feel better about their team being caught cheating, you aren't exactly debating the issue with much rigor.

111
Aaron made the Haslett / Simmons reference, not Simmons.

Can we get OMO moved back to CBS Sportsline?

Seriously, can we discuss the issue at hand, instead of "OMG, THIS SITE IS SO PATRIOTS BIASED"

re:99

"he Patriots clandestinely had a low-ranking coach videotape the Jets’ signals, and when you’re sneaking around, it means you know you’re doing something you’re not supposed to be doing."

Have you seen the photos? Theres absolutely nothing clandestine about what hes doing. Hes standing about 20 feet from the jets bench, with the camera focused directly at them. No sneaking involved.

And exactly how many of Aaron’s stats did you see in the Simmons/Aaron article?

Not every article is about why teams win, so every article won't utilize advanced stats. That article was just a couple of Patriots fans who were a little depressed about their team getting caught cheating, trying to cheer each other up. They were thoughtful enough to record that conversation and share it with us, giving us some insight into the people behind the stats.

Like they say, FO writers are fans first, and sometimes it's nice to see that side of them. Football isn't just wins and stats and trends, it's a shared experience that brings us together. It's tailgaiting before the game with your friends, it's cheering that last minute drive, it's holding your breath as the desperation Hail Mary soars through the air as time runs out.

Sometimes, you have to stop worrying about the stats and just talk with people about the game, and the teams playing it. That's what that article was about, and I think it's part of what separates this site from other football statistics websites. There's a community here, and that article is just one example of why that community exists.

Here's a question for the Bellicheat apologists -

If the advantage gained from stealing signals is so negligible, why would The Pats continue to do so AFTER NUMEROUS warnings/reminders of the illegality of such actions?

Re: 55
I think you are missing one of the main points of sports which is that it is an insight to our larger lives outside of sports. Cheating in sports is a chance to talk about cheating in life. Claiming victimization in sports is almost exactly the same as we see in political contexts every day, blaming the messenger or anyone else except the perpetrator. These are all larger issues and worthy of discussion for the parallels and insights we can gain from them. Banning all commentary which draws these pertinent connections is a pretty shallow and silly response and cripples one of sports most important functions.

Finally, I was not even really discussing politics. I drew a comparison to an argument I heard repeatedly in Israel to justify otherwise despicable acts. Actually a specific act and the specific responses I heard to that act. A very apt and apolitical insight.

If you can't appreciate what sports teach us about human nature, you're missing most of why sports are so important.

I don't think a one game forfeiture is sufficient for a pattern of cheating. NFL teams not owned by a guy named Snyder live and die with the draft; the salary cap demands it, because veteran talent is too expensive. If Goodell really wants to inform the management of thse clubs, like he has the players, that when he says certain actions will not be tolerated, he means it, he ought to have the Pats forfeit their entire 2008 draft. Let's see how much fun Belichik and Co. have staying on top by 2009 after scoring a zero in the 2008 draft.

What might constrain Goodell is the fact that alienating a single owner, especially an influential one like Kraft, can cause Goodell a lot of problems in future CBA negotiations in a way that burying a 24 year old like Pacman Jones does not. Life just ain't fair.

"Check his injury reports from last season and see if you’re still of the opinion that he’s above violating the spirit of rules, if not the letter, for even a ludicrously small competitive advantage."

I am not sure what you mean?
There were a bunch of times players listed as questionable played, but Denver did the same thing.

"In addition, there have been accusations that his defensive line coach teaches his players to intentionally injure..."

Many people on this site have said that about the Denver o-line as well.
Now I know you have defended them, and in general I agree with you, but I thought the play where Nalen got fined was pretty obvious.
I have not seen a Colts d-line player do anything like that.
I don't watch every Colts game and certainly could have missed something, but I have not heard these accusations about the Colts.
Mostly I heard they sucked at stopping the run. :)

I suppose I should make some actual intelligent comment on the article.

To me, this story does a disservice to FO. Everything that Simmons says is pretty much what you expect out of Simmons.

But I normally expect better out of Aaron. If the whole premis of Simmons' column is "I'm going to get input from Aaron Schatz, who runs the stats-driven Football Outsiders" website, then you would hope Aaron would provide statistical insights... like the other EP thread where he presented Pat's DVOA before and after halftime for the past three years.

Instead, Aaron just gripes along with Simmons. About how everyone is overreacting and "the negative reaction to this is just completely overblown." As somebody posted earlier, to suggest at this stage that this was a very limited strategic advantage is both premature and counterintuitive (easily shot down by the "then why risk it?" argument) Additionally, it's Aaron and not Simmons who brings up the Chargers just to bash them down to the cheating Pats' level. Aaron brings up Haslett and the Steelers, Herm Edwards, and the Broncos. "Other people broke the rules too" is hardly a rousing defense.

The whole thing is best summed up in these lines:
I feel the same way about giving the Patriots-haters something to sink their teeth into. It upsets me. But I just don't think the cheating thing is new.

It sounds like Bill and Aaron are more angry at the - justified - outlash from other fans than they are about the actual rule breaking. Ouch.

I've got no problem with the Pats getting hammered for this, obviously, but any coach who suspected that the other guy was trying to steal his defensive signals, and couldn't easily prevent it, is either lazy as hell, or has an idiot for a defensive play caller on the field.

Omar (#120 )--
Here’s a question for the Bellicheat apologists
I'll go out on a limb and say you're looking more to score points than for a reasoned answer. So here you go:

+1
(golfclap)

Will Allen (#122 )--

Or you could disband the franchise, erase the team records, ban all the players...that would "inform the management of thse clubs," for sure.

I love this site, even with the Patriot-centricness of the owners. I don't really think it's a problem, it's just something you accept. If I want a Panther-centric site, I'm more than free to create one.

But I do want to comment on the "stats aren't biased" statement. My worry whenever I make a model is that my personal prejudices are going to influence the model. I have to recognize my prejudices and make allowance for them. For example, I dislike rich people and tend to see trends in data that reflect poorly upon them. I have to stop myself and test whatever I have come up with to see if it is just a product of my prejudice.

I do sometimes wonder if the owners of this site are perhaps blind to their own prejudices and don't make proper allowance for them in their modeling. No big deal if they are, but I would not be surprised to see teams that use systems similar to the Patriots tend to do even better in DVOA than they otherwise would compared to teams that use different systems. The model might very well be spot on. But I think it is wise for all of us to consider our own prejudices in everything we do.

Rich, I made, what I believe, a legitimate counter point to your repeated post and point that that the video taping isn't a value added exercise.

I guess by your reply no substantive reply is coming and you'd rather not answer your "critics", rather you just want people blindly subscribe to what you are stating?

Perhaps then you should post instead to a Pats-centric website where the majority of the people agree with every little pro-Pats statement you make...

Will Allen wins.

"What might constrain Goodell is the fact that alienating a single owner, especially an influential one like Kraft, can cause Goodell a lot of problems in future CBA negotiations in a way that burying a 24 year old like Pacman Jones does not. Life just ain’t fair."

Bravo sir, thread over.

except that your statement may be construed as political and thus

POLITICAL POST DELETED.

and the thread continues untarnished by reason or logic.

Re #126 -

eat the sarcasm and answer the question...

Starshatterer,

Since you seem to view all of the suggested punitive measures as unbearably harsh, what would you deem a fair punishment for this offense?

Tell me, starshatterer, why would one be so silly as to equate scoring a zero in a draft with having a franchise disbanded? Hell, crappy teams score zeros, or near-zeros, with their drafts with some frequency. That is why they are crappy. Scoring a zero on a draft is not an incredibly unusual event. Why shouldn't it happen to the Pats?

I'm don't know if the Patriots cheating started recently or years ago, but I went back and studied all 14 Patriots games and found that they haven't shown a significant difference in their second half stats compared to the first halves of those games. See the link for the full explanation.

Starshatterer, I have another scathing question for you. Where does your screenname come from?

Nathan, let me also say that I fully support burying the likes of Pacman Jones, I just recognize the reality of how risky it would be for Gooodell to be similarly unforgiving of the management hired by an influential owner. Because the world ain't perfectable, however, doesn't mean I see any reason to cut some slack to the likes of Jones.

Well, he's an ex free-base addict, and he's trying to turn around, and he needs a place to stay for a couple of months.

* * *

Normally I wear protection, but then I thought, "When am I gonna make it back to Haiti?"

* * *

Say, why don't we have a conversation about this whole taping incident, and link to it on your stat-driven, objective football site?

Well, giving up a whole draft is a bit much.

What I expect to happen is losing a 1st or 2nd rounder, plus a second day, plus a likely 1 to 3 game suspension for Belichick.

I doubt they will forfeit a game, or any of the other strong penalties put out there. Especially with no hard evidence on how much the cheating is affecting other teams.

LOUD NOISES!

Omar (#131 )--
eat the sarcasm
Not likely.
and answer the question…
Funny thing is, the only ones who can actually answer that question (Belichick and whoever else on his staff was involved), won't. At least, not publicly. They're supposed to talk to the Commish sometime before Friday, and they seem prepared to give a whole lot of "no comment" to the press about it until then.

I never said one way on another about the competitive advantage taping would give. It seems like it would be very small advantage, if any to me, but either the Patriots brain trust thought otherwise (possible), or that same brain trust thought they'd never get called on it, so the size of the advantage didn't matter (also possible).

(shrug) We'll know more by Saturday. Or not.

There's no politics in football!

Pacifist Viking, if we've moved up to random noises and such, I submit:

"Mr. Cellophane should have, been my name. Mr. Cellophane..."

Re # 140 -

You sound like Charlie Brown's teacher...

I think the right punishment would be to have to forfeit the game they were found cheating during. Perhaps something that hurts from top to bottom of the organization would eliminate the cheating. Do it for spying like this, proven steroid use during a specific game etc. Stiff punishment will stop stupid crap.

Derek (#132 )--

I forget who proposed it, but on one of the other threads, someone said: dock them a third-round pick, fine them $1 million, and suspend Belichick for a week.

Will Allen (#133 )--
Tell me, starshatterer, why would one be so silly as to equate scoring a zero in a draft with having a franchise disbanded?
Because one feels the first is too harsh, so one make a modest proposal of the second, to mock the harshness of the first.

Gus (#135 )--
It's a character name from an old table-top RPG, many years back.

I guess I'd like to see the text of the warning letter Goodell sent on the matter, and assuming it was well written, have Belichik sit down and diagram the sentences. Having had the misfortune of being tasked with the responsibility of firing people for willful misconduct on a few occasions, what always drove me batty was the signed warning letters that were often in the personnel files, which after reviewing with the person who couldn't grasp why they were being canned, caused me to want grab the person by the ears, give them a shake, before inquiring, "Just what is it about your native tongue that you find so go*****ed inpenetrable?"

Gotta love modern American society. Whenever anyone does anything wrong and the public first finds out about it, people can't spew forth phrases like "rush to judgement" and "overreacting" fast enough (which is overreacting in and of itself, but of course nobody ever grasps the irony). Then of course the ugly truth comes out, and it's *always* worse than everyone thought, and then these same people have nothing to say, but that doesn't stop them from continuing to defend the indefensible anyway.

Thank Goodell the NFL at least has decided to enter a new era in which wrongdoers are--gasp!--held accountable for what they do. Because for at least the last decade that's become a completely foreign concept to Americans as a whole.

Belichick isn't Mike Dick of course but everyone said to move along, nothing to see here when *that* story first broke too. Oops.

Either the Pats DID gain a significant advantage from doing this or Belichick was stupid enough to keep doing something that *wouldn't* really give him an advantage even after he was warned not to. It's either one or the other guys, there's no third option here. My money's on Option A.

As far as tainted titles, *maybe* it doesn't taint the previous ones. Maybe. But what happens if, as 99% of the football world has assumed for months, the Pats win the title *this* season? It would definitely taint that one IMO.

I don't really care what the exact punishment is, I just want to see a wrongful act punished. As I always have, whether the Pats are involved or not.

Pray tell, starshatterer, given that crappy teams whiff on drafts with some regularity, why is such a fate deemed too harsh for a team which willfully cheats, despite previous warning to refrain from such behavior? Are the redoubtable Patriots incapable of understanding the common meaning of words? Are they children, and thus are not to be held accountable for willfully disregarding a warning? When, oh when, will little Billy Belichik become a grown-up?

Aaron, how dare you try to inject some moderation and perspective into the discussion-you filthy homer! ;)

BTW, I should've mentioned this earlier, the Yom Kippur paragraph is extremely funny.

Wait, Dolfan, how would it taint a title if they win it this year?

I mean, they were CAUGHT, they'll have to turn over tapes if they have them, and it's fairly safe to say they probably won't be doing it again.

Hopefully on Friday, we'll see why he did it. The main punishments that I hear going about that I think would be ridiculous are removing all draft picks, a yearlong suspension, or playoff ban. Too harsh, I feel.

Not to mention that last time I checked, the Pats bring alot of cash into the league... no way Goodell is punishing them THAT much.

Bill Simmons doesn't remember the Panther-Patriot super bowl very well. The Patriots were waaaaay better in the 2nd half (or just past the 1st quarter) than they were at the start of the game. The Patriot offense was unstoppable by the end of the game; it was up to who held the ball last to win. If this pans out and the Pats were taping signals during the Super Bowl, HELL YES does it taint it.

Hey, aren't people forgetting about execution? Lets say that Brady see's the defense's adjustments and know's what's going on, doesn't he still need to adjust the play and then EXECUTE it. It's not like catching a ball is automatic, or running through a crashing line of men is exactly easy.

I don't know whether Manning and the colts steal signs or not but I know Manning see's things at the snap that make him adjust the play. He still has to get the play off, avoid the rush, because maybe someone on the O line failed their task, and then he still has to throw the ball where he thinks it needs to be based on not only a presnap read but also what happens after the snap.

My guess is Brady, as well as most decent quarterbacks, read defenses better than poor quarterbacks.

It's not like defenders perfectly accomplish their assignments either. Or maybe they change up their own personal role because of their instinct.

I mean, look at Ed Reed, the guy is a tremendous atlete but he also is an instinctual player. He know's where the play is going. That's why he's always in a great spot to do something.

Or maybe Baltimore is doing something to snag Offensive signals; like satelites picking up the written plays on quarterback's arm sheets.

#111

Apologies, I wasn't totally clear in my two complaints. The Haslett line was from Aaron, I thought he'd know better, but since this was an informal chat, I accept he didn't have a chance to fact check.

The Simmons comment was from when he was listing all the dynasties that should have their Superbowls stripped. He listed The Steelers with a parenthetical steroids. I can only assume that he was using Aaron's erroneous first cite of Haslett as a source for the Steeler's steroid allegations to substantiate this position. Regardless of where Simmons got his idea that the 70's Steelers won using steroids, steroids were not a banned substance until 1983 so there'd be no grounds to take the 70's Steelers Superbowls.

At least in the ESPN article the Pittsburgh claim that Indy piped noise in was stated as an accusation. Which was investigated by the league and found to be false.

The RCA dome is an very loud building, I've been there for college basketball games and high school football games when it was no where close to capacity and was still deafening.

I'm sure Aaron agreed to the Simmon's article to help promote the site, but it comes with a double edged sword. It does nothing to help the site shed the site's image as a Pat's homer site. I think Aaron does a wonderful job stating fact vs. his opinions as a fan vs. as an stats analyst, but not everyone will see it that way.

why is such a fate deemed too harsh for a team which willfully cheats, despite previous warning to refrain from such behavior?

I don't know, because the last time a team was caught cheating, it cost them a third round pick? Seems like the jump from losing a third round pick to losing an entire draft is a bit fast. And honestly, it wouldn't be necessary to get them to stop cheating in the future. A second or third round pick, a large fine, and a one-game suspension of Belichick would be more than enough to get them to stop cheating. And once you've done that, there really isn't much point in additional punishments.

Are they children, and thus are not to be held accountable for willfully disregarding a warning?

I don't recall anyone saying that they shouldn't be punished. Every single Pats fan who has posted here (as far as I can tell), has agreed that they need to be punished. It's the severity of the punishment that's in dispute. And honestly, I don't think it does anyone any good to take away their entire draft. Take away one or two picks, fine them, and then move on. They'll stop cheating if they think they'd lose a first day pick for doing it.

And btw, I mean this in the nicest possible way, Will, but if I were on trial, I'd make damn sure you weren't on the jury. ;)

Will Allen (#148 )--

You're arguing other points now.

* Other teams often draft badly, and get little or no value for their draft. So? Many people have lost a hand; that doesn't mean that cutting one off would be an appropriate punishment for theft.

* Since you haven't read "the text of the warning letter Goodell sent on the matter," that whole aside about Belichick's reading comprehension is meanngless. I've read some prose from expensive lawyers that was about as clear as mud, and have no reason to believe the NFL's memos are any clearer than their rulebooks.

* Regarding your main point, I feel what I quoted (3rd rounder, $1 million, a week off for Billy B) is harsh enough. If you wish to convince me otherwise, argue why more is appropriate.

Getting into high dudgeon about but it's cheating! and bringing in odd, tangential arguments, isn't doin' it for me.

Re. 151:
And yet they collapsed in the second half of the AFCCG last year, and the Colts were way better. Maybe the Colts were stealing signals!

((Note: I don't actually believe the above statement, just saying how tough it would be to prove if looking only at second half improvement.))

I say, suspend Belicheck for 1 week. Confiscate and review every scrap of game film the Pats currently have during that week. If they have reams and reams of film on defensive signals (which they should, if it goes back that far), then more sanctions/suspensions should be forthcoming.

Regardless of whether it helped them or not, they have broken a rule multiple times, and there should be consequences.

#151:
What?! Someone with the same name? I thought I had dibs, I was here first! Well, in any case, someone needs to alter their name to avoid confusion here. Hmmm...if you want, I guess I could figure something out, but if you have something in mind, go for it.

151 - Anyone remember who it was that hard that dozen-post argument over someone else stealing their name (when it was, in fact, a common first name)? That was great theater.

Starshatterer - cool, I had to ask. Figured it was something like that.

I meant to cite 151 & 158.

Re #61: I can’t speak to the accuracy of kibbles’ description of the Broncos’ cap violation, but I really don’t care about motivation in this area. Any willful violation of cap rules should result in at least the forfeiture of a year’s draft, with more than one year’s draft for egregious cases.

I posted the official NFL statement on the matter. You can feel free to google it to confirm it's legitimacy. And saying that motivation doesn't matter is silly to me- if one owner filed for bankruptcy and paid his players late, and another owner hired an accounting firm whose sole reason for existance was to cook the books and allow them to exceed the salary cap, you'd punish them the same? Would you also hand out the same penalty for accidentally hitting a defenseless player late as you would for deliberately attempting to end someone's career? And if Belichick's cameras had been trying to film a documentary and had been panning over the crowd when they had inadvertantly pointed at a Jets coach, would you be calling for the same penalty as you would if Belichick's employee got on the field under false pretenses and deliberately violated a known rule in an effort to gain a competitive advantage?

Re #112: As for the injury reporting, give me a break. Belichick started that one. The Colts stopped reporting injuries as a protest to what the Pats did, hoping that the league would tighten the rules. I’d classify that more as a political protest than a rules violation. Finally, any and all of those types of decisions rest with Bill Polian (who I wouldn’t put anything past).

If Dungy starts videotaping opposing coaches, are you still going to insist that he's squeaky clean, since Belichick started that one, too? Even if we pass the buck on to Polian, it's not like Dungy is exactly an innocent party here. I like the guy, I think he's a class act and one hell of a football coach, but I also believe he's not above seeking out advantages where he can find them, spirit of the rules be damned.

Also, for the record, Indy's injury report shenanigans were reporting everyone as questionable, which is actually the TITANS schtick, not the Patriots. Belichick's schtick is being as vague about the injury description as is humanly possible and ocassionally listing a player as probably when he's either not injured (Tom Brady) or definitely not going to play (Corey Dillon). Are you saying the Colts did their injury report as a political protest against the TITANS?

Re #123: I am not sure what you mean?
There were a bunch of times players listed as questionable played, but Denver did the same thing.
As an example, in the injury report the week of the Denver game, 20 players were listed. 1 was listed as out, 19 were listed as questionable, and NONE were listed as probable or doubtful. Of the 19 questionable players, 17 participated in practices by Wednesday and were active in the game against Denver. 17 out of 19. The week before, they had 21 players on the injury report- all of whom were questionable. I'm pretty sure that they did not use a single probable or doubtful designation all season (or, at the very least, for a very large chunk of the season). If you don't see how this is violating the spirit of the rule (if not outright violating the LETTER of the rule), then there's not much I can do here.

I'm just a lurker, so I don't post very often and I'm not looking for any flamewars, but here's my two cents:

I think that the fact that this happened to the Patriots has created the perfect storm of animosity, hard-headedness, and defensiveness from all angles on this site. That's unfortunate, because there's a lot that needs to be parsed out regardless of one's opinion of the Patriots outside of the incident (honestly, I'm not really a fan or an opponent of the Pats)

Videotaping an opponent's signals may not provide any quantifiable advantage whatsoever. But there are comparable offenses in other sports which are punished nonetheless. Every single study ever performed in regards to corking one's bat has indicated that it has no effect whatsoever upon one's ability to hit for power in baseball, and yet the act is still illegal and punishable by suspensions. Similarly, there is a body of evidence that HGH might just be a placebo- slate did an article on this about 8 months back- and yet players get suspended 1/4 the season for their first offense. All these things might just be malum prohibitum (bad because they are prohibited), and not malum in se (bad in themselves), and so they are punished, sometimes quite severely. Whether they have a real effect is immaterial, and the attitude that all the major sports leagues and most fans have taken is that if the player believes it to be illegal, it's illegal.

Now, this situation is slightly different in that the obviously illegal but perhaps meaningless action was not performed by a player, but directed from higher up. Imagine, I suppose, the manager of a baseball team handing out corked bats to every member of the starting lineup. What is the proper punishment? To what degree to the players understand that they are potentially benefitting, or at the very least in possession of, illicit material? If the players are fully complicit- a charge that could probably never be proven- some punishment would need to be arranged. Mass suspensions are unfeasable, and something like a team fine which docks every player would be bitterly opposed by the players' union (for good reason). In such a case, the most logical result would be the forfeiture of an already played game; since to make this forfeiture some previous regular season game would be meaningless, and some previous Super Bowl game would be unduly harsh, we're only really left games for this season or some future season. To automatically forfeit some future game seems to result in a major windfall for some undeserving team- imagine one extra bye plus a victory against perhaps the league's best team. That leaves the Jets game from Week One. But all this is whistling dixie, since there's no reason to believe that the front office or the coaching staff would ever allow the entire team to be implicated, and the coaching staff would quickly lose the respect of the players if they allowed this to happen.

This leaves sanctions against either the coaching staff and/or the front office directly. But what can be done here? The salary cap can't be diminished for any one team- why should the players be punished? Likewise, forfeiture of an entire draft class seems a bit draconian, barring persuasive evidence that there was some real and tangible effect that these tapes had. I understand the action to be illegal- that is, malum prohibitum- but what punishments will we reserve for the truly reprehensible actions which may be committed in the future by front offices- the mali acti in se? What further step can be taken, no drafts for two years?

If I were Roger Goddell, and the information given to me was basically how I understand it to be, which is the following:

1.) Several teams have complained about the improper taping of signals during games
2.) That specific action was deemed improper and non-specific sanctions were threatened
3.)The Patriots continued committed these actions, ignoring those non-specific consequences.
4.) This was done at the behest of Bill Bellicheck

I would propose:

1.) The loss of the 1st round 2008 draft pick
2.) Automatic granting of pick #32 in every subsequent round (which may be where they are headed anyway)
3.) A suspension of Coach Bellicheck of four games, exactly the same amount of time that players shown to use banned substances would be suspended, and during which Coach B would have to abide by all the regulations that players must abide by when suspended, and
4.) A written policy acknowledging even more stringent penalties for second-time offenders (i.e., the Patriots) and acknowledging that this will heretofore be the standard penalty for such illicit behavior by any team.

You can quibble with the details, of course, but I think that this is the proper course for the league to take, and I think that at the same time it remains respectful of both the organization's and the players' procedural due process rights, assuming that the facts I assumed above can be shown to be true to the standard the NFL feels is appropriate (as it seems they can be).

In the meantime, this board is starting to look a lot like the ESPN or CBS Sportsline board. None of this is life or death, and after last weekend and the Everett injury, we should maintain some perspective.

(One last note- the breaks show up when I'm writing, but not in the "say it!" screen, so I'm not sure if this will look like one long blocked-up mess. My apologies if it does, but I don't post often, so I'm not sure if I'm formatting it correctly.)

re 158:

I'll be AleX. Now that's way cool.

Starshatterer, Alex, given that teams whiff on drafts, and they still function, what is the basis for saying that it would be so harsh for the Pats to whiff on a draft? Because it would affect your viewing pleasure? What about the viewing pleasure of the fans of the teams Belichik has cheated?

Taking away a year's draft would be the equivalent of the stiffer player suspensions handed down recently. Standards change. Now, as I said above, my views could change based upon the exact wording of the warning letter the league office sent out, but if the language was clear, screw Bill Belichik.

If I'm Commissioner, I've got enough on my plate to not have to suffer fools who need to be told things twice. Belichik is not a minimum wage employee who is reasonably expected to need close supervision. He is not middle mangement, and thus not tasked with large responsibility. He is an exceedingly highly compensated member of senior management who can resaonably be expected to follow simple instructions as to what constitutes intolerable behavior. If he isn't up to that, he can go work in another industry, or take a less responsible, and less rewarding, position in his current industry. No, I wouldn't banish him, but I'd hit him pretty damned hard, in order to convince him to grow the eff up.

Little Billy Belichik appears to be a slow learner, so I'd put him through some advanced instruction regarding the costs of unprofessional behavior, and also gain the benefit of concentrating any other insufficiently educated minds throughout the rest of the league. What is good for labor is also good for management.

Finally, Alex, I know a lot of defense attorney's probably wouldn't want me on their client's jury, but I swear, if the prosecution didn't have a good case, I'd be a defendent's best friend. I'm skeptical about nearly all institutions.

Kibbles (#161 )--
Belichick’s schtick is being as vague about the injury description as is humanly possible and ocassionally listing a player as probably when he’s either not injured (Tom Brady) or definitely not going to play (Corey Dillon
IIRC, there's a specific point to Belichick's schtick about Brady on the injurty reports: teams are required to list any player who misses portions of practice.

After the 2002 season (career high in pass attempts, separated shoulder by the end of the season), the Patriots have limited Brady's practice throws during the week. Hence probable-shoulder since early 2003.

Kibbles, please contend with what I wrote, and not what you suppose I wrote. I specifically stated that I would treat all WILLFUL violations of the cap very harshly, but that more egregious violations would be treated MORE harshly.

#162: Yeah, I've got a pretty huge quibble with the #2 part of your proposed punishment.

And I do not nor will I ever appreciate being told to shut up when I see or hear about someone else doing something wrong (nothing exclusive to #162, just in general). That's how we've found ourselves in this situation where players are being arrested every week to begin with.

I understand the action to be illegal- that is, malum prohibitum- but what punishments will we reserve for the truly reprehensible actions which may be committed in the future by front offices- the mali acti in se? What further step can be taken, no drafts for two years?

Thats' exactly what I've been trying to argue. The punishment should fit the crime. And to that end, I like your proposed punishment.

In the meantime, this board is starting to look a lot like the ESPN or CBS Sportsline board.

Yeah, any controversy involving the Patriots is bound to cause tons of people to go haywire. The Pats just seem to have that effect on people.

I think that Belichick let the cameraman get caught so that he wouldn't have to talk about the Chargers this week. He really doesn't want to rehash all the Merriman-dance-gate from the playoffs, and so he cooked up an elaborate scheme to avoid the subject coming up. Otherwise, nothing ill to say about anybody, just finally got to buy a copy of PFP07, honestly couldn't care less about who the FO staff roots for, and has no information to contribute or rumors to speculate pertaining to sideline videography.

And I do not nor will I ever appreciate being told to shut up when I see or hear about someone else doing something wrong (nothing exclusive to #162, just in general). That’s how we’ve found ourselves in this situation where players are being arrested every week to begin with.

I don't think I, or anyone else, said anything to that effect. All I said that could even possibly be interpreted that way was that we need to maintain perspective, and that the issue brings out rash reactions that wouldn't exist if this wasn't the Patriots (like I said before, I care not a whit one way or another for the Pats). If you can find the part where people were told to shut up, please quote it. In the meantime, I hope cooler heads prevail.

Why not lose two years of drafting for the mali acti in se? Would not such a sanction greatly discourage the mali acti in se? To draw a parallel with college football, the NCAA eventually discovered that thet so-called "death penalty" for egregious recidivism in recruiting violations was a useful deterrent, and after a couple schools had their programs liquidated, the worst behavior was seen less frequently.

Will Allen (#164 )--
What about the viewing pleasure of the fans of the teams Belichik has cheated?
Unless we're punishing based on reputation, that would be team (singular). Belichick is ostensibly being punished for cheating the New York Jets, and not every team that has ever had a beef with him, yes? Since he deprived those fans of their entertainment for about half the first quarter, dock the Patriots about one-eighth of a draft. That would be one pick, probably a third-rounder in value. Then fine the money and suspend Belichick for a game, to satisfy The Dudgeon.

(Actually, now that you've made me think about it, the third-round pick is probably enough. Thanks for helping me think through it again!)

And you're still prattling about teams whiffing on drafts, and Belichick's reading comprehension. Wasn't persuaded before, still not now.
I’m skeptical about nearly all institutions.
One notable exception being the NFL, and specifically its commissioner's office.

151 - Weren't a few Panthers on that NFC Champion team roided up? I forget the specifics of the story, but if it was a bunch of juiced up guys vs some video cheaters, then it probably balances out.

I had a paragraph here about understanding the difference between Pats Fan Schatz and Stats Schatz. It was rambling and ultimately pointless. However, I just want to put Stats Schatz out here a few times. I really like that name (even if I'm mispronouncing his last name just to make it rhyme).

If Roger Goodell suspended a coach for more games than a player for using HGH, hasn't the precedent for a 5+ game suspension been set here?

When you consider that the NFL concluded that Wade Wilson was being truthful regarding the reasons for his use of HGH and that he had made no attempts to distribute the drug, dont we HAVE to see a harsher penalty for breaking rules that could affect the competitive inegrity of the game?

#171- I don't have a definite answer for that, except that I think the loss of an entire draft class would be pretty much the equivalent of the NFL death penalty, because the consequences would extend beyond not acquiring new, younger players. The result wouls also be reflected through the adverse reaction this would have on the cap, as your team's median age advances significantly and overpriced veterans (who may be more reluctant to play for your team) fill more roster spots. I don't think any team whiffs on a draft so badly that they get absolutely nothing in return whatsoever. But I don't have a knock-down answer why there couldn't be a situation where two drafts are taken away for some obviously bad act.

No starshatterer, Belichik was doing the same in a the Green Bay game last year, hence the warning. I agree, your prattling regarding the harshness of losing a year's draft is tiresome. Please stop. Finally, since I specifically stated a couple of times that my views could change depending on the exact wording of the warning which was issued, reading comprehension doesn't appear to be your strong suit either.

Oh, no doubt, #175, a team would suffer mightily for by losing a draft, but given otherwise competent management, it certainly wouldn't be a death penalty. Now, two years? That may be a different story, which is why I'd reserve it for the worst acts. It isn't as if such egregious bad acts are difficult to avoid.

Of course, for reasons I outlined above, there is little chance that the Commissioner would ever be as harsh towards an owner as he would towards a player.

Will Allen (#171 )--
Why not lose two years of drafting for the mali acti in se? Would not such a sanction greatly discourage the mali acti in se?
Sure. So would disbanding the franichise, erasing the records, etc. Having Belichick hanged would "greatly discourage the mali acti in se," too.

And if you want a greater deterrent effect, is it not more useful to increase rate of enforcement, than to increase penalties? Up to this past Sunday, enforcement for this particular infraction has been zero. Any punishment at all will increase the deterrent effect, if that's what you're after, rather than satisfying your Sense of Outrage.

Maybe a fourth-rounder...

Starshatterer, apparently, you still are unable to grasp the difference between a franchise no longer existing, and a franchise suffering a few difficult seasons. Why not increase both the rate of enforcement and the severity of the penalties? I know, I know, it's too harsh. Prattle on.

#163:
Great! Very cool!

#164:
Starshatterer, Alex, given that teams whiff on drafts, and they still function, what is the basis for saying that it would be so harsh for the Pats to whiff on a draft? Because it would affect your viewing pleasure? What about the viewing pleasure of the fans of the teams Belichik has cheated?

I guess I'm coming from a different perspective than you. In my mind, if a punishment is sufficient to get people to stop doing the things they are being punished for doing, that's all the punishment needed, and it shouldn't be increased, even if a team/coach/player might "deserve" worse. And I assure you, a first day pick and a large fine would be plenty to stop Belichick from doing this again. Then make it clear that subsequent violations would yield greater penalties, and you're set.

#167: Yeah, I’ve got a pretty huge quibble with the #2 part of your proposed punishment.

And what, pray tell, is your quibble?

Alex, the purpose of most sanctions is not to simply deter the wrongdoer from recidivism but also to deter any other actors considering similar acts. Now you may be right that a lighter punishment would suffice. You also may be wrong, so I'd prefer to err on the side of a more harsh penalty, especially in regards to what really needs to be deterred, again, assuming the warning was clearly worded. The willful disregard of a warning as to what constitutes intolerable behavior is itself egregiously intolerable.

Obviously, there is no precise measurement for this, and I probably wouldn't see it as terribly wrong if rounds 1-3 in 2008 were taken away, but one pick seems to light. The problem I have with a suspension is how difficult it would be to enforce no contact between a coach and his staff during the suspension. Hard to enforce sanctions are of limited value.

Wow people sure are worked up here. Personally, everything I have heard out of the NFL sounds like they are handling this well, so i don't really care to comment until after they have acted.

Aaron really doesn't realize how much of a homer he can [i]come across as[/i]. I actually don't think he is that bad of one myself, but I can see how others would, and I definitely see it is rubbing some people the wrong way.

Here is hoping this whole thing blows over and everyone is reasonably satisfied. Besides when Tom Brady goes down in week 4 this year the Pats will fall apart (I have him on both my FF leagues).

So glad to just be reading and not participating in this mess.

Oh, what the hell... Kibbles, my associate Mr Zombie and a couple others addressed your complaints about RCA Dome noise (one man's rumor) and Dungy injury lists (public record). Allow me to point out that John Teerlink (Indy DL coach) was called onto the carpet by the commish long before he was hired by Indy (he was a Lions coach IIRC) and given a verbal warning--no official punishment--for encouraging his DLs to physically injure. Verbal warning is what a cop gives you when you're 5 MPH over the limit, not when you're weaving drunk through downtown pedestrians at 50 MPH. Evidently, there was not much of a case against him. And it was more or less history at that point.

Flash forward 10 years and Byron Leftwich has an argument with Teerlink in a game in which Leftwich IS injured (by what appeared to be his own clumsiness and stupidity--if you didn;t see it, the descriptions of the play can also be found in the archives here--BL fumbled and half-bent/half-ran trying to pick it up and make a positive play while about 6 guys fell on him). This made the rounds here and someone with more free time on their hands than I found that Colt opponents have a lower incidence of injury than the NFL average. I have no primary data as proof, only one person's word, but it worked for me and nobody here refuted it. Case closed, have a nice day. Thanks for throwing every unsubstantiated rumor you had in the air, it helps clear things up so nicely. What, couldn't you fabricate something about Dungy's "false piety" being the real reason his son killed himself? Okay, I am sorry about that; way over the line. The vituperation on this thread must have gotten to me. I generally like your posts and consider them to be well reasoned.

I'm sure we'll chat the next time the Colts face the Broncos.

Let the picnicking on the Pats' bones resume.

Becephalus, I know one wouldn't believe it from my comments in this thread, but I actually like the Pats quite a bit; strangely enough, the Pats or the Colts are the two teams I'd like to see from the AFC in the Super Bowl. Stupid stunts like this however, have the potential to ruin the experience for a lot of fans, and the fact that Belichik was too damned dumb to avoid this mess is disappointing. DeGaulle once said, of a far more important matter, concerning the behavior of a contemporary of his, "It was far worse than a crime. It was a blunder." That kind of sums it up for me.

Will Allen (#176 )--
No starshatterer, Belichik was doing the same in a the Green Bay game last year, hence the warning.
No.

Green Bay accused him of doing that. No formal complaint to the league, no tape or camera confiscated.

Do you really want Goodell to punish rule infractions by tacking on penalties for things we're sure people have done? If so, Mike Nifong says, "Hi."
I agree, your prattling regarding the harshness of losing a year’s draft is tiresome. Please stop.
But the harshness or appropriatenes if the punishment is the point of what we're arguing. Pointing to other teams' perceived* lack of draft acumen has no bearing on whether your prescribed punsihement is too harsh.

Finally, since I specifically stated a couple of times that my views could change depending on the exact wording of the warning which was issued, reading comprehension doesn’t appear to be your strong suit either.
And yet, you roll out your "Little Billy Belichik appears to be a slow learner" schtick, over and over again. Which means that your view now is informed by that which you cannot in good faith assume: the infallibility* of the league notice.

* Since Goodell is both the author of the policy and its judge, I predict with complete confidence that Goodell will find the notice to be without flaw, and you'll never need your fallback position.

Unless I'm not correct about your assumption of the league memo's airtight quality, your critiue of my reading comprehension is sophomoric. (See how the qualifier in the first clause does nothing to lessen the snottiness of the conclusion?)
Starshatterer, apparently, you still are unable to grasp the difference between a franchise no longer existing, and a franchise suffering a few difficult seasons. Why not increase both the rate of enforcement and the severity of the penalties?
Oh, I grasp the difference just fine. Just like I know the difference between cutting of a hand and hanging, and think both are too harsh for the crime of theft. But the logic of increasing punishment without bothering to listen to slow learners prattle about the harshness of mutilation, will lead us to hanging thieves.

If the rule infraction is cheating, then it's cheating, no matter what excuses are offered. And if the punishment is too harsh, it's too harsh, no matter how mightily you were offended by the act.

As for my prattle, I'll stop when you convince me I'm wrong.

(By the way, I used the word "prattle" to desribe your talk of other teams failing at a draft, because I think your point about those teams has no merit. No team has ever gotten no value at all from a draft, much less two in a row. And the idea that the Browns suck at drafting, so taking a team's entire draft class is no big deal, is nothing more than clever chatter masquerading as a point. If it really bothers you that I said "prattle," then I'm sorry.)

Tell ya' what Starshatterer, once you demonstrate that I ever wrote that taking a draft "is no big deal", instead of saying it is a painful sanction, and once you reflect on the meaning of the word "appears", then it may be useful to discuss the relative merits, or lack thereof, in the rest of your post. However, once somebody starts arguing with what they created in their head, instead of what I wrote, further conversation is pointless.

Finally, what I find notable about your posts is their pointless rudeness. You'll note that I have not adopted a hostile tone with other people with whom I have differed in this thread. for the simple reason that they have not indicated that they desired such an exchange. You, for some reason seem to prefer such invective, or you are so lacking in self awareness that you don't realize that rudeness is commonly perceived as an invitiation to take further discourse in that direction.

I haven't read all of the comments, and I doubt I would have anything new to add. However, can we please stop adding "Gate" to any scandal story? Please!!!

I knew that guy was a cheater. No way he's smarter than me!

Fuel on the fire -

My guess is that BB viewed this like any other rule in the book the pass interference rule for example. If they don't throw a flag its not a penalty.

If they don't stop you filming its ok.

Goddell has thrown thrown the flag. I don't think he's going to pick it up so now the question is simply "how many yards" are the Pats going to be penalized.

Goddell will also try to hard to avoid showing a lower standard for non-players - especially after the suspension he gave Wade Wilson.

BTW -

Will Allen is eating Star's lunch in their debate.

Thank you, Aaron Schatz, for pulling of the first ever joke about a specific Jewish prayer in a football column. That cracked me up.

I read the first couple of paragraphs and Aaron's comments are spot on.

Can someone please explain this secret radio frequence accusation to me? I've always assumed the NFL had Chinese Government / Pentagon / Israeli strength encryption. Now the Pats have broken it or are using secret channels? That seems utterly ridiculous.

"Remember when Jim Haslett admitted to using steroids when he was playing for the Pittsburgh Steelers during their dynasty years of the '70s?"

Yes I do and am constantly reminding Stiller fans of their Steroid Curtain.

anti-spam word: tanier

- I enjoyed reading this article, even though I disagreed and these guys are total homers, I enjoy reading their opinions.
- Nothing wrong with having a Patriots bias, just don't pretend it doesn't exist.

Surely the penalty for this is obvious? For the rest of the season, opponents of the Patriots should have access to professionally filmed footage of the Patriots' defensive signals.

The issue of how useful this cheating is then becomes moot, as the Patriots suffer exactly the same amount as they gained.

How would I feel about this if the Jacksonville Jaguars had been caught doing it?

Speaking as a Jaguars fan I'd be even more disgusted. I'd be less concerned about whether it tainted our recent playoff performances, though.

I also suspect that Bill and Aaron wouldn't be putting quite so much effort into excusing it. In fact I'd expect a lot more of the traditional Jack Del Rio bashing.

Is Bellichek's paranoia communicable? Everybody hates the Patriots?

I'm not a Pats fan but I've rooted for them in their recent SB appearances and last year against the Colts (hate to see a good storyline like 'Manning can't win the big one' die). But it's hard to imagine I'll be rooting for them in any situation again. The dishonesty is surpassed only by the stupidity.

Even if we concede the Steelers were using steroids, because his source Jim Haslett said so (eventhough he immediately retracted his statements), steroids were not a banned substance by the NFL until 1983. Yep, they didn’t start testing until 1987 sooooo what exactly would you strip the Steeler’s Superbowl rings for?

No, because taking steroids is cheating, regardless of whether there is a specific ban against it, just like stealing is wrong whether or not the country you are in has a law against it or not.

If the advantage gained from stealing signals is so negligible, why would The Pats continue to do so AFTER NUMEROUS warnings/reminders of the illegality of such actions?

Sometimes people (even smart people) do stupid things. Why did Saddam Hussein try and obstruct weapons inspectors when he had no weapons?

As far as losing multiple drafts worth of picks, surely that penalty is far out of proportion to the crime. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is painting the opposing locker room pink and 10 is slipping drugs into the Gatorade of the opposing team, this is a 2. Any or all of: a game suspension for Belichick, a fine, and one or more draft picks next year (but no more than two) will be appropriate, and what Goodell will hand down. Those hoping for the destruction of the Patriot dynasty will be disappointed.

Will,

The reason why StarShatterer and myself think that taking away a draft is wrong is because the punishment is too harsh. Sure it will 'discourage' others from doing it. That doesn't necessarily make it fair.

Does videotaping an opponent's bench equal losing an entire draft? Especially when the same results could be accomplished with slightly more effort (ie. a spotter with a pen and paper?)

What is being banned here? Reading the other coaches or using a videotape to do it? Because I can guarantee that more than the Patriots do the former.

#195: I really like the suggestion that the penalty should be a come-uppance of having it performed against them.

But there should be an additional penalty for having disregarded the intents of previous warnings. From Goodell's point of view, that is probably more serious than violating a rule by using some video equipment on the sidelines. After all, what would the punishment be if the rule that had been broken involved having the wrong kind of equipment on the sideline, or wearing the wrong kind of apparel?

So the punishment should affect Belichick and the coaches/staff directly, since it's that behavior that is at fault. Fines, appropriately large given their respective incomes, would work.

And Kraft ought to punish Belichick for causing embarrassment and harming the organization's image. But we'll probably never hear about that, at least not in detail.

What a roller coaster seasaon already for pats fans.
The wider media coverage of this is amazing. At first i thought this was just trivial gamesmanship that would be punished excessively by a third round pick. Now I have people in my office that don't even follow football talking to me about it. I expect the commissioner will have to respond with something dramatic.

I have a lot of respect for what Aaron and the rest of the FO contributors do here and in the book, but it's impossible for anyone here to know how much of an advantage the Pats achieved as a result of their cheating. We simply don't know how the information was handled/used. We can speculate, but we can't know. So the suggestion that he knows the advantage gained was minimal is purely rationalization.

No, because taking steroids is cheating, regardless of whether there is a specific ban against it, just like stealing is wrong whether or not the country you are in has a law against it or not.

Maybe, but if you're in that country and see somebody stealing, you can morally condemn them all you want but you still can't tell the police to arrest them Saying the Steelers should have been sanctioned by the NFL for doing something that was not against the rules is silly whether or not you think what they did was wrong (and setting aside the question of whether they did it at all).

Re: 192 "That seems utterly ridiculous."

Yeah, it does seem sorta unlikely. Then again when the stroy was first reported about a camera being confisgated from the Pats during the Jets game, I figured it was nothing. A little gamesmanship from the Jets, maybe. Well, it turned out to be more than I figured.

And, of course, one problem with being caught red-handed cheating, is that folks are a lot less inclined to grant you the benefit of the doubt when other accusations of cheating are made.

I like how the conversation has gotten away from accusing the FO staff of any impartial behavior. I think the FO staff has been very good at hiding their individual biases when presenting analysis. (I guess there have been exceptions for the sake of humor.)

I don't come to this website in order to read commenters talking about other commenters, either.

Re: 201

The commish has to get to the bottom of how long this has been going on. Given that there are other folks out there that might not be inclined to cover this up anymore (Mangini, Romeo, Weiss), I suspect Bellichek will just be relatively honest on the matter. If he lies about it, and Goodell concludes he's lied, the pusnishment could be much worse.

200: The suggested punishment I've seen for Belichick that I like most is forcing him to follow Mike Nolan's lead and wear a suit for the rest of the season.

Or would that be considered cruel and unusual?

Um...

Schatz: The Patriots don't cheat against San Diego. They dance against San Diego. Disco fever!
This whole thing has an 'I'm shocked ... SHOCKED that gambling is going on in this establishment' feel to it.

COMPARE TO!!!!:

I always figured that stealing signals was okay (except for the electronic transmissions, which was an honor system). Certainly when the MLB figures out the QB’s audibles it’s worthy of praise.
And extending to the guys on the sideline: Hey, if my guy with binoculars steals your signals, you should talk into your cupped hand more often. Otherwise, why do all those coaches call in plays while talking behind their play sheets or hands–they EXPECT the camera/binocular thing, no? Hell, they’re probably doing it themselves!
In the immortal words of Louis Renault in Casablanca, I am shocked–SHOCKED!–to find that play stealing has been going on here.
:: Bobman — 9/10/2007 @ 5:36 pm

check the comments in the last Extra Points on this subject.

I hope Shatz is sharing his royalties with Bobman.

193:

Your memory is quite faulty then. Haslett never played for the Steelers. Hopefully your Steeler fan friends are more knowledgable of NFL history than you.

Personally, I think the Patriots have been punished almost enough by their humiliation in the media. All of us non-Pats fans should just agree now that, if the Pats win it all this year, we will declare it to be a "tainted win" and give the Pats fans a hard time about it now and forever, even if that is not, strictly speaking, reasonable. Sorry Pats fans, them's the breaks.

re 159
It was stan,
he freaked out a bit.

re 206
Absolutely,
The Patriots should be forced to describe in mind numbing detail how often this happened, what they did, and what advantage they thought they could gain.
Today, before noon.

Was there an advantage gained by this? Jim Bates, who should know a thing or two about it says... tremendous. Click my name.

It actually made me laugh though, how y'all (you know who you are) actually suggested that Belichick might be stupid enough to keep doing something illegal that he was warned against doing, even though he got little to no benefit from it. Go look in a mirror and think about that, hey?

210

The best part is, this immediately wins all arguments against Pats fans.

"Belichick is a genius, Tom Brady is awesome, etc."
"The Patriots cheat,"
"... :("

Will Allen (#186 )--
Tell ya’ what Starshatterer, once you demonstrate that I ever wrote that taking a draft “is no big deal�, instead of saying it is a painful sanction...
No, you never typed out the words "no big deal," at least, not in this post. However, you did type:
...given that teams whiff on drafts, and they still function, what is the basis for saying that it would be so harsh for the Pats to whiff on a draft?
Were you not trying to belittle our objections to the harshness of losing an entire draft class?
Finally, what I find notable about your posts is their pointless rudeness.
I prefer "pointed sarcasm," but I guess you could find that rude. BTW, here's my entire initial response to you:
Will Allen (#122 )–

Or you could disband the franchise, erase the team records, ban all the players…that would “inform the management of thse clubs,� for sure.
I'm not sure how that's discourteous or impolite. I was attacking your argument, not you. Nevertheless, if you felt it to be pointlessly rude, I apologize for that.

(Your next reply: "Tell me, starshatterer, why would one be so silly as to equate scoring a zero in a draft with having a franchise disbanded?" -- went straight for belittling the speaker instead of the argument, so any further rudeness on my part was no longer pointless.)

That much said, you never did explain why a third, a game, and a million was too lenient. That hits the team, the coach, and the owner, all substantially, but no one of them is hit with six or seven times the previous penalty for competition violations. To quote a noted motivational-punishment expert:
Obviously, there is no precise measurement for this, and I probably wouldn’t see it as terribly wrong if rounds 1-3 in 2008 were taken away, but one pick seems to light.
...it would seem that one pick, plus other sanctions, would not be terribly wrong, either.

If you'd rather keep calling me rude and questioning my comprehension skills, then you're right: further conversation is pointless.

Nfl.com has a pretty interesting video of reactions around the NFL, linked at my name.

Best response is from Tony Dungy who says something like "Right now, I'm not going to comment because everything is rumors and nothing official has come from the league office. If it's proven that that's what they're doing, well then I'll have some really good comments."

Call me a pessimist, or maybe just a person who only knows bad people, but I can't think of anyone I know who hasn't skirted rules to accomplish something.

So for me to pass any kind of judgement on Belichek would be hypocritical. Maybe I wouldn't coach football that way, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't/haven't cheated in other aspects of life.

The pitchfork and torches crowd absolutely slays me.

They broke some rules. Everyone makes mistakes/pushes rules to their limits, and I'm sure Goodell will give them the correct punishment.

If they lose a game I will be incensed. One poster hit the nail on the head. This isn't amatuer athletics so lets not go around retroactively changing results. In professional sports the object is to move forward. Take a draft pick or levy a huge fine and lets all move on.

My goodness, it seems that everyone now has knowledge of Patriots spying... that they 'just remembered'.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8024a850&template=with-video&co...

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8024a8b2&template=with-video&co...

Quick! Check if the Cardinals waterboy has anything to say on it!

One word on the "This is a Patriots homer site". I have to admit, that while aware that many of the writers were Pats fans, I've never felt the site to be unfair or overloaded toward the Pats. I didn't find Schatz's comments in either the Simmons or the DVOA piece to call his objectivity into question. There's another site that is too pathetic to merit mention that is a ridiculous Patriots homer site (cough, CHFF, cough), that claims objectivity but is ridiculous. This site has always been fair to my team (obvious which one that is), and I think the accusations of being pro-Pats are cheap shots. I recommend and discuss FO on my pro-Colts site nearly every day and will continue to do so.

Wow. That was a complete waste of time. Glad to see Schatz and Simmons were able to put away their Patriots Blinders for a few seconds... (rolls eyes)

OMO

"Rich, I made, what I believe, a legitimate counter point to your repeated post and point that that the video taping isn’t a value added exercise."

As to your comment on WLB Blitzing, if the semaphore is 3 codes, you need atleast 3 plays where the WLB Blitzes, and the other two codes are different. IE, if the WLB blitzes on 2 plays, and they also play zone on both, you've figured out nothing. If the semaphore is 4 codes, that goes up to 8. If the Semaphore is 5 (which is much more likely) codes, it goes up to 16. Do you really think you're going to see 16 WLB blitzes in a game, let alone a half?

For those that were arguing "maybe the wording wasn't clear in the rule book" here's the text of the memo re: filming:

a memo from Ray Anderson, NFL head of football operations, to head coaches and GMs on Sept. 6, 2006 said: "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent’s offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches’ booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

MS Paint to the rescue! (link in name)

For reference, I take the middle position – it was wrong and incredibly dumb, and they should get punished in a meaningful way, but the people who think they should forfeit games or be banned from the playoffs or that they wouldn’t have won three Super Bowls without cheating are off the deep end.

"And yet they collapsed in the second half of the AFCCG last year, and the Colts were way better. Maybe the Colts were stealing signals!"

We need to get around the stealing signals thing. THIS ISNT ABOUT STEALING SIGNALS. EVERYONE STEALS SIGNALS.

This is illegally taping the signals for future use.

(snark)

“Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent’s offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches’ booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.�

Then how does the NFL expect us to be able to see the games on TV?

(/snark)

"No starshatterer, Belichik was doing the same in a the Green Bay game last year, hence the warning. I agree, your prattling regarding the harshness of losing a year’s draft is tiresome."

Will, your prattling about it is JUST AS ANNOYING.

Seriously, if you take a draft away from the Pats, what do you do to a team that taps into radio signals, or steals playbooks? Take away 5 years of drafts?

You'd be actively running a franchise into the ground. Your idea is absurd.

221: Not enough cats. Replacement link in my name.

Well, starshatterer, when I write several times that taking away a year's draft is meant to be a painful sanction, and you respond by writing that I had asserted that the penalty "was no big deal", there are only two possible conclusions. You are either dishonest or illiterate. Given that dishonesty carries a component of a character failing that illiteracy does not, I was merely trying to be charitable to you. You now seem to dispute that your reading skills are inadequate, thus one is only left with the first possibility. Since when is a question as to why a fairly common outcome (whiffing on a draft) is so harsh the same as saying whiffing on the draft is "no big deal", or belittling in nature?

Given you have stated that your first post to me was meant to mock, why on earth would a response which inquired as to the silly nature of the mocking be unexpected?

In any case, I'd be quite happy to not interact with you any further, given that there many people here with whom I can differ without having to correct their misstatements of my position.

Personally, I think the Patriots have been punished almost enough by their humiliation in the media. All of us non-Pats fans should just agree now that, if the Pats win it all this year, we will declare it to be a “tainted win� and give the Pats fans a hard time about it now and forever, even if that is not, strictly speaking, reasonable.

Surely if the Patriots win this year this will be the least 'tainted' of any SB. After all, you know there will be legions of fans watching the Patriots' sideline both at the game and on TV looking for the slightest impropriety.

Chalk me down as :

1. A non-Pats fan who
2. thinks the whole videotaping thing is hilarious and
3. doesn't warrant a serious punishment of any kind.

"So the suggestion that he knows the advantage gained was minimal is purely rationalization."

As is the suggestion that the advantage gained is anything more than minimal.

You're right. We dont know.

Rich, I'd take away two years of drafts for those offenses. If a management team wishes to be so absurd as to run their team into the ground, well, that's an excellent reason to not have a management team engage in such absurdity, isn't it?

LnGrrR, the blatant disregard for a clear warning, if cd6's post is accurate, is as serious as the underlying offense. What do you think Bill Belichik would do is Randy Moss started showing up during the 2nd quarter of games? I wouldn't be surprised if he suspended him for as long as the cba allowed, to prevent him from going to another team, while meting out extremely harsh punishment, as the Eagles did with T.O.. Highly paid management should be held to a higher standard than higly paid labor.

If Bill Belichik is too ignorant to understand the plain meaning of words, and too stubborn to change, he needs to be the recipient of a painful education, all the better to also educate any other stubbornly ignorant coaches in the league.

"Well, starshatterer, when I write several times that taking away a year’s draft is meant to be a painful sanction, and you respond by writing that I had asserted that the penalty “was no big deal�, there are only two possible conclusions. You are either dishonest or illiterate."

Or Will, you dont understand the spin you're putting on things, and falsely believe you're being objective.

Will, its pretty clear you are of the oppinion that a full draft class may not even be enough. You may not actually think that, but its the message you're sending. The rest of us think its absurd.

Re 227 -- oh, I don't know about that. They've admitted to cheating in one game this year, which surely makes that win at least arguably tainted, and in a league like the NFL that is brutally competitive -- is that not why we love it so? -- even a one-game difference in the standings could have potentially significant implications. For instance, for home field advantage in the playoffs -- or, if not, in the ability to rest one's players without impacting home field advantage.

Is such an impact large? Small? Nonexistent? The beauty is that no one can ever know for sure -- meaning that the claim of "taint" can never be refuted.

I'm sure that offensive linemen "cheat" -- illegal holds, etc. -- in every game and that those violations have a far greater impact on the outcome of every game. But those offensive linemen are seldom foolish enough to put themselves in a position where they have to admit it in the media. Just shows how disciplined and intelligent the Patriots' organization actually is.

My personal view is that this is a relatively minor violation that will be appropriately handled by the Commissioner. This will not stop me from using this to unreasonably torment Pats fans and enjoying the hell out of it whenver possible. YMMV, of course.

Re: #212 - I'll willingly accept Bate's assertion that it provides a serious advantage if you'll accept his assertion that everyone is doing it:
"It's notorious that it goes on in the league," Bates said. "Either people steal 'em from the sidelines or they've got a coach assigned as far as trying to steal signals. I think it goes on quite a bit."

229:

“So the suggestion that he knows the advantage gained was minimal is purely rationalization.�

As is the suggestion that the advantage gained is anything more than minimal.

You’re right. We don't know.

You're both right.

RE: 230

Will, if you want to punish BB, then punish him. Taking away an entire draft punishes the team much more than BB. Suspend BB for a number of gains and make him watch the games in a Colts bar. Fine him. But don't overreact in a way that hurts the players and the fans more than is appropriate. Besides, it would be an interesting experiment to see how the Pats played for a few games without BB.

"They’ve admitted to cheating in one game this year, which surely makes that win at least arguably tainted,"

Isn't cheating, essentially gaining an unfair advantage? The tape was confiscated in the first quarter, well before they had a chance to look at it, so I think its fairly safe to say that cheating had nothing to do with the outcome of that game. They also confiscated the camera, so all this "he could have transmitted it" is bunk.

I'm of the oppinion that they should be punished, and a 2nd or 3rd round pick is probably about right. Maybe the pick/cash/suspension is a good idea.

I think making them forfeit the jets game is absurd. The game is done, and over with. It happened. If it was to be forfeited, the refs should have called the game at halftime. If you're gonna start changing the outcomes of games after the game is already played, you need to go back and give seattle a superbowl(bad calls the nfl apologized for). You need to give NE the AFC championship last year (bad calls the NFL apologized for). You need to go back and change the outcome of a couple dozen games. They're over. They're done. Its the past.

Will, punishment is about deterrant, not righteous retribution.

:235

Arrggh, that was "games" not "gains" of course.

It seems people are conflating two issues here. Stealing signals and videotaping the opposing coaches from the sidelines. Stealing signals is not at all stealing nor is it against the rules, if it were against the rules then coaches would not need to use code to disguise them. The videotaping from the sidelines is a violation of the rules and it is the behavior that needs to be punished. From my perspective it is not that large of a violation as it does not definitively provide a meaningful advantage (compared to using binoculars). However in this thread CD6 says recently there was a specific warning regarding this behavior. Ignoring this warning does increase the severity of the infraction in my mind.

Will Allen,

Yes, he defied warnings. No one's denying that. However, the punishment you suggest is, in my mind, far too harsh. Can you find any parallel to other sports in terms of such a harsh punishment?

As mentioned before, what happens if a team is found to have cheated in a more egregious way? Take away draft picks for 5 years?

Your idea of 'teaching him a lesson' would be accomplished with far less of a punishment. So why go above and beyond? Isn't the point of punishment to stop the behavior from occuring? Or do you think punishment is to 'get even' at the guy who did it?

235

You can't just act like this is Bill Belichick in isolation cheating for the sake feeling better with one more W.

Cheating can affect outcome of multiple games, which can get teams in and out of the playoffs, and deeper in the playoffs, and so on. Considering the extra income from postseason ticket sales, extra merchandise sold by playoff teams, endorsements, and so on... there's a hell of a lot of money at stake here. If that Pats needed to cheat to win those superbowls, and would have lost without cheating, well then maybe we wouldn't have been subjected to those insufferable Diet Pepsi machine commercials.

A financial punishment via a fine of some kind is certainly merited.

All I know is that I'm very disappointed in Belichick -- he missed a great opportunity.

He should have had the cameraman in question -- whom he knew Mangini knew -- have a pre-shot tape in the camcorder that had the text "Hi Eric. Love, ya. -- Bill" superimposed over a picture of Gillette Stadium.

241

I think Belichick is just going to respond by breaking up Mangini's marriage.

236: But it isn't an option for those referees to call the game. They might not even have known, and the NFL wouldn't have wanted to stop the game before they even received the tape or made any kind of decision about it. What if it had all been a mistake? Cancelling the game would have been a disaster.

There's precedent in college football for invalidating wins after the fact, why shouldn't the NFL consider that possibility if they do establish the Pats were cheating in that game? It doesn't matter that they got stopped early in the game; I'm with Pat, forfeiting a game is exactly the most appropriate punishment for cheating in that game, even if they hadn't acquired the benefit yet.

It would hurt everyone in the organization to forfeit the game, and thus I think it's considerably more appropriate than forfeiting parts of the draft.

As for Will v. Starshatterer, we got a classic example of the FO message board discussion gone wrong. It's no different from a stupid board, except for the quality of diction and syntax.

Step 1: Exchange of rude responses.
Step 2: Mocking responses to the other's rudeness, depicting the other as being more rude/immature.
Step 3: Outwardly polite "attempt" to understand, paired with additional inflammatory rudeness.
Step 4: Condemning the other person, especially in their ability to understand each other's point.
Step 5: Attempts at meta-commentary, claiming "who started it."
Step 6: Someone tries to "take the high road" by ending the conversation with another belittling comment.

Anyway, I personally think Starshatterer is right, penalizing an entire draft is inappropriate. It is not equal to ending the franchise, but it would be stiffer than the crime merits.

Gauging the level of advantage is difficult. Stating that there is NO advantage is pretty silly since clearly the Patriots thought there must be SOME advantage. Otherwise, why do it? Particularly when the team was already warned to NOT do it.

Somebody must have determined that this activity HELPS. I really doubt that some BB underling convinced the boss that this would work. Bill makes the decisions for that team. Period.

As for punishment, if it had been done without prior warning a first day draft pick would have been sufficient. But the mitigating factor is that the league SPECIFICALLY told clubs to NOT engage in this activity. If folks are going to have a hissy about forfeiture, which I think is in the ballpark, then multiple draft picks and whopping big fine on the head coach is fair. Possibly even a one game suspension of BB.

He and the team were duly warned. And the Pats flipped off the league. If I was Goodell I would be royally p*ssed. And be looking to make a very clear statement.

But that's me...........

Re: 240

I don't have any problem with a fine either (or in addition), again that's hitting the responsible people which I think is fine. I'm against losing an entire draft though as that's both too harsh and hits the wrong people in my opinion.

Personally I find the watergate analogy a good one and don't think the idea that the Patriots "needed to cheat to win those superbowls" holds water.

#233: Selective quoting? I somehow doubt you missed this part:

Like most teams, the Broncos have two or three people flashing defensive signals - some of them dummy signals - to make stealing them harder. Of course, if you have them all on videotape, you can just watch what the defense runs and figure out which signals were real.

And honestly RCH, no offense, but I don't particularly care whether you accept Bates' assertion or not. Denial and spin is the theme of all the unhappy and desperate Pats fans on this thread anyway, so you'd fit right in.

Having said that, the vitriol from the other side is pretty disgusting too. Lynch mobs have nothing on you guys, sheesh.

Alex, the purpose of most sanctions is not to simply deter the wrongdoer from recidivism but also to deter any other actors considering similar acts. Now you may be right that a lighter punishment would suffice. You also may be wrong, so I’d prefer to err on the side of a more harsh penalty

I don't see how taking away a first day draft pick (or maybe two of them), and imposing fines and suspensions, wouldn't convince Bill Belichick, and everyone else in the league, that taping opponents' signals isn't worth it. There's just no way that that penalty would be too light. Missing a first day pick (or even two) is a big deal, and I'm very sure that it would be enough to deterr everyone from doing this again.

Who's stupid enough to cheat like that if they know that the penalty is going to be that high? Surely nobody that coaches in the NFL is that moronic, are they?

200: The suggested punishment I’ve seen for Belichick that I like most is forcing him to follow Mike Nolan’s lead and wear a suit for the rest of the season.

Or would that be considered cruel and unusual?

That would be very cruel and unusual!

I think making Nolan and Belichick switch places would be far worse of a punishment...

I think making Nolan and Belichick switch places would be far worse of a punishment…

As long as I have my hoodie, it'll all be ok.

Rich, please explain. How is it "spin" to note that saying that the loss of a year's draft constitutes hitting Belichik and the Pats "pretty damned hard" in no way approximates saying that the loss of a draft is "no big deal"? Also, note that set known as "people who agree with Rich" is not identical to the set known as "the rest of us."

Look, your harshometer works no better than mine. You think the loss of a single pick will effectively deter all others who would be tempted to blatantly ignore plain warnings in an effort to gain an advantage. I don't. I could easily see a hypercompetitive NFL coach in, say, an important late season or playoff game, thinking that he will risk a third round choice to win a game that saves his job. Thus, I prefer a penalty which has a multi-year impact. Your attribution to me of a desire for righteous retribution is merely baseless mindreading on your part.

LnGrrrR, when the Minnesota Timberwolves cheated on the salary cap, David Stern took away, if I remember correctly, four first round draft picks, which given the infrequency with which 2nd rounders stick in the NBA, is even more harsh than what I recommend for the Pats. I'm a Timberwolves fan, and I sould not argue with it. Breaking rules in order to gain an unfair advantage, and then ignoring a clear warning to knock it off, messes with the business model of a professional sports league. Messing with the business model, in open defiance of written instruction to the contrary, makes a very harsh penalty appropriate, lest others be tempted to follow the same path.

Again, what I find problematic about suspension of coaches in the NFL is the difficulty in enforcing no contact during the week.

So all this fuss is about filming? Seems like a more efficient method than writing it down for the same result.

Two things occur to me :

1. Why not hide the camera behind tinted glass either side of the stadium. If you're going to be sneaky, at least be smart about it.

2. The Bears offence are obviously stealing defensive signals one week and then using them the following week.

If the Commish concludes what most suspect (that this is something that's been going on for years in NE), I think the punishment for BB will be pretty severe - multi-game suspension. If he concludes that Kraft knowingly sanctioned the cheating, then the punishment to the organization will be equally ugly (multiple draft picks, mucho fine $$).

I actually have a comment that is not related to who cheated, what the sanctions were, etc. Perhaps Patriots fans (or those as educated about the Patriots team) can comment on the fact that Bill Simmons states that the "Pats draft better than everyone else". It has been my perception that the Patriots have built their team a lot more through free agency than spectacular drafting.

Now, I know most will trot out Tom Brady and Richard Seymour, but it seems like the Pats have drafted WR busts every year. In contrast, their free agency contributors have been: Bruschi, Vrabel, Moss, Welker, Stallworth, Colvin, Dillon, Adalius Thomas and Harrison.

When I think of teams that "draft better than anyone else", teams like the Chargers, Colts and Steelers come to mind before the Pats.

Alex, I don't mean to simply deter this particular form of an attempt to gain an unfair advantage, by means which have been clearly, in writing, warned against. I mean to deter, via a sanction whch has multi-year impact, any conceivable means by which a coach may go down that path, when faced with the proverbial must-win game. If somebody like Belichik is willing to do this in week 1, I could see coaches with their jobs on the line going further, even under threat of loss of a single draft pick. My sanction would be intended to concentrate the minds of coaches under those kinds of pressures as well.

Re: 250 Again, what I find problematic about suspension of coaches in the NFL is the difficulty in enforcing no contact during the week.

Perhaps during the term of his suspension you require BB to conduct some community service work out of the NFL offices in NY. :-)

Well, like I said above, I might be able to see the loss of all draft picks on the first day as being sufficient, but not a sole draft pick, even a first rounder.

Simmons: "Spying on opponent's signals is just plain seedy. It's one step above playing footsie with someone in an airport men's room. It's a disgrace. It's embarrassing."

Schatz: "As a Patriots fan, of course, I'm sick to my stomach."

That's homerism?

The comments I've read from Pats fans online and heard from Pats fans I've spoken to have been almost uniform in their revulsion over the actual acts themselves, and their acceptance that some punishment is appropriate.

I don't know. Maybe my sample is not representative. I do think that most Pats fans, when talking about the ACT and not the REACTION, have been fair.

Denial and spin is the theme of all the unhappy and desperate Pats fans on this thread anyway, so you’d fit right in.

Not even close.

You think the loss of a single pick will effectively deter all others who would be tempted to blatantly ignore plain warnings in an effort to gain an advantage. I don’t. I could easily see a hypercompetitive NFL coach in, say, an important late season or playoff game, thinking that he will risk a third round choice to win a game that saves his job.

Some people are undeterrable (maybe even Belichick). You don't set the penalty to try and deter the least deterrable. You set the penalty to deter the average person and then deal with the exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

In this case, Goodell could simply telling Belichick that if he does this again he will be banned from football. So either it works as a deterrent, or the problem eliminates itself.

Scott, the average NFL head coach is hypercompetitive to a degree that the average fan cannot comprehend, and works unde enormous pressures that the average fan cannot comprehend. The bar for deterrence, given those factors, is set very high.

I am one very pissed off Pats’ fan who is having trouble forgiving Belichick for ruining my anticipation of a 16-0 season, as well as my pride in the past six years of Patriots football, and I really, really want to punish the guy. I’m leaning toward the 4-game suspension as a kind of necessary time-out for BB so he can get away from football for a while and reassess his values as a human being. But before rendering my final verdict, I think it behooves me to reassess myself as human being---to take a little inventory of my own cheating heart. So here are some questions I’m asking myself today:
Was it cheating to let the rogue cable guy hook me up to free HBO access?
Was it cheating to accept those pirated copies of the Lord of the Rings trilogy?
Was it cheating to report $1000 of charitable donations on my tax return when it was really $100?
Was it cheating on my wife to follow that blonde to her room on my last business trip?
Am I cheating when I drive 80 in a 65 mph zone and use a radar buster to help me do it?
Am I cheating my kids when I tell them I’m too tired to play with them and need to watch television?
Am I cheating my boss when I spend 3 hours on his dime reading Football Outsiders?

I think the answer to all those questions is yes, I am a cheater. But I’m not really sure what it says about my character and what society could do about punishing me for my past behavior or correcting my future behavior. I don’t even know if society stands on high enough moral ground to punish me. This morning I read that the nation’s spy chief admitted to misleading Congress in order to push through dubiously legal spying legislation (spying…oh, the irony). And don’t even get me started on WMD as a causas belli or “I did not have sex with that woman� or (for love of God!) Milli Vanilli. Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio, indeed.

Anyway, everything IS relative, but that doesn’t mean we should live in an accountability-free world. BB should definitely pay a price for the arrogance he displayed here. And turning the Pats over to Pepper Martin for four games sounds about right to me.

And perhaps when he’s done dealing with BB, Roger Goodell can call me in and give me a well-deserved smack-down for my own transgressions.

I propose that the NFL swing a second pick from the Pats to the Jets, and make Belichick wear a tux on the sidelines for the rest of the year. We can all get behind the second part of that, right?

Rich,

It's not that complicated.

There is a left side blitz.

The signal was: belt, left hand up, fist pump.

Anoter left side blitz, signal was belt, both hands up, fist down

Another left side blitz, signal was belt, hands down, fist across.

Belt=left side blitz.

Your equational result is built to determine each and every sign...learning any advantage like a left side blitz is still a significant advantage.

Do they figure them all out in a half? Probably not...but if they figure out one advantage with the use of video? Of course they do. Or they wouldn't make such an effort to get the tape to the locker room at half time.

Another point...if players who have been assigned to "steal signs" have a theory on what sign is what play/formation, etc...then the video is only used to validate a theory...thus you wouldn't even need the 3 plays, you could accomplish this with only 1 or 2, especially if the player assigned remembers the exact play and result that occured.

Another point...I have not seen one player or coach who has said this isn't an advantage. That "theory" has only been offered by fans...and for the most part Pats fans. I haven't seen every interview with players and coaches...but I've seen at least 10 or more...

Goodell, having developed a reputation as something of a hanging judge in matters of player misconduct and in a climate where people are highly sensitive about the integrity of sports due to steroids, the Donaghy mess, etc., has to come down very hard. In this context, I don't think the Broncos punishment for cap violations is a meaningful gauge. For example, I don't think Pacman's year-long suspension could have been predicted by looking at prior precedent. Goodell decided to increase the severity of punishments to address a potential threat to the economic well-being of the league. And I would submit that lingering questions about the integrity of the on-the-field product would be a much greater threat to the economic well-being of the league than public disgust with players' off-the-field behavior. So unless the Pats have a good explanation or defense that hasn't been made public yet, I would expect Goodell to do something drastic to make an example of them, as he did with Pacman.

(I'm not comparing Pacman and the Pats' conduct. They're not comparable and they raise completely different issues for the league. The point is that both situations give Goodell his first high-profile opportunity to take a position on those issues.)

Dan, if your behavior with blondes in motels affected the business model of the NFL, then Goodell could reasonably be expected to pay attention to your behavior with blondes in motels. Having coaches defy clear warnings in a effort to affect the outcomes games by means which grant an unfair advantage does affect the NFL business model. Belichik should just be thankful that he still has a career.

#212 Kaveman,

Bates is talking about the benefit stealing signs - which everyone does -

****tanget****

Let's drop the whole "you can't say that everyone else does it unless you have proof" garbage. Every relevent coach or player that does not have a grudge against NE admits this. Many admit that others are videotaping as well.

****close tangent****

not the value of specifically using a camera. Again, the value of the camera is entirely based on the ability to preserve the signs for future use. It is possible that a play of two may be affected during the game if there is another group of guys using binoculars because it will allow someone to go back and view the sign again. This is not possible on the road, however because security would not allow NE to bring in the stuff they would need to do this. Unless, of course you want to assume that NE has a group of people off site with transmitter and monitors.

Where the camera is most helpful is for use after the game in preperation for the next game.

BTW, Bates was directly involved in a recent game where a team admitted to stealing audibles. It is now rumored that Miami didn't purchase the film, as they claim, but they had recorders on their lineman to capture the sound during the first game. Even though that loss eventually led to NE having to play SD and Indy on the road, I am not bothered at all by. Knowing the signs and calls is one thing, winning the game is another. And teams absolutely *do* switch calls regularly so NE could have done this if they felt it necessary. My opinions have nothing to do with homerism, they are based on logic.

OMO,

Indy is famous for stealing defensive signs, they just don't use a camera. It is not the sign stealing that should be punished, it is the use of the camera.

Will,

I can see where you're going, but I think taking away an entire draft is too harsh.

I would much rather favor multi-game suspensions and fines than an entire draft being taken away.

Speaking about the Minnesota Timberwolves, how blatant was the cheating? The penalty seems far too harsh. Perhaps this is a reason why NBA viewership is dwindling each year. I can't see how they expect to keep viewers when their team is handicapped for four years straight.

I don’t mean to simply deter this particular form of an attempt to gain an unfair advantage, by means which have been clearly, in writing, warned against.

Nor do I.

I could see coaches with their jobs on the line going further, even under threat of loss of a single draft pick.

If a coach has his job on the line, he's not going to care about what happens to the team in future years if he gets caught, because either way, he'll be fired. If he loses because he doesn't cheat, he gets fired. If he wins, but gets caught cheating, he gets fired. No big difference there, and changing it from one draft pick to 7 doesn't really matter to a coach that's going to get fired anyway. If you want to specifically discourage coaches from doing this, fine Belichick a few million dollars (on top of taking away a draft pick or two). I guarantee you, that will get everyone's attention real fast. Taking away a majority of a coach's salary for the year would be plenty to discourage them from doing something like this again.

Will,

I'm not really sure why you continue to protest someone's difference in opinon so much. Many, if not the majority, feel that an entire draft isn't an appropriate punishment. Sure it is a deterent, but it is over the top.

If the NFL didn't have a specific steroid policy and someone was caught, would you be out there proposing lifetime bans on the first offense?

Re: 264,

Belichick, lose his job? Sure, if Goodell wanted to alienate a huge, paying portion of NFL fans.

#268 The problem with that penalty is if the owner/GM is complicit in the "crime", he can make up to the coach in his next year by paying him a bonus of by renewing his contract on more favourable terms.

Re; 265

I think it's probably fair to say that every team tries, to some degree or other, to 'decode' opponents signals and audibles. That's part of the game and fair when done within the rules.

Who are the many that admit (presumably with firsthand knowledge) other teams are videotaping signals? I've seen some speculation from folks not in a position to know, but I haven't seen anybody else 'admit' (confess??) to this cheating.

By the way, who was that Miami coach and where could he have learned such behavior?

Well, LnGrrR, I certainly don't think the cap cheating by the Wolves was unprecedented, except in terms of the inept way in which it was executed. I didn't think the sanction was too harsh, given the importance of the salary cap to the NBA business model. Hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps billions of dollars, are at risk if the cap is threatened, and the popularity of the Minnesota Timberwolves is not important enough to endure that.

Look, like I said, nobody has a precise way in which to measure deterrent effect, but I think people are entirely fooling themselves if they think there are not coaches who would risk a third round draft pick to win a big game by means which violate clear league policy. Again, the issue I have with suspensions for coaches in the NFL is that enforcing non-contact during the week is just about impossible, given modern communications, absent actual incarceration, and no, I'm not willing to give the NFL such power, despite my reputation in this thread of being excessively harsh.

"If Bill Belichik is too ignorant to understand the plain meaning of words, and too stubborn to change, he needs to be the recipient of a painful education, all the better to also educate any other stubbornly ignorant coaches in the league."

I won't even give him that. The way I see it, the league issued a DIRECT ORDER to all teams to refrain from videotaping opponents, and BB knowingly disobeyed it - "Wha'evah! I'll do what I want!"

Don't sit him for four games. Sit him for the entire season AND fine him 1 million dollars AND take the victory away from the Patriots.

It's about time that there's a commish who gives a clear message - "Don't fuck with me"

Oswiek, see the posts above. The NFL did have a specific written policy banning this behavior. Your analogy is inapt.

I did not protest that people had a different opinion than mine, and, in fact, have had a civil exchange with many of them. I protested the fact that someone blatantly misrepresented my position.

Oswlek:

"Indy is famous for stealing defensive signs"

They are? Proof?

"Rich, please explain. How is it “spin� to note that saying that the loss of a year’s draft constitutes hitting Belichik and the Pats “pretty damned hard� in no way approximates saying that the loss of a draft is “no big deal�?

Will, this statement entones exactly that:

"ell, crappy teams score zeros, or near-zeros, with their drafts with some frequency. That is why they are crappy. Scoring a zero on a draft is not an incredibly unusual event. Why shouldn’t it happen to the Pats?"

Will,

That is a very arrogant reponse. So, my analogy is inapt because you don't like it? Please.

Ok, let's try it again. Let's say that the NFL determines that someone is using steroids and sends a letter out stipulating that it will not be tolerated bot not stipulating the punishment. Would you propose a lifetime ban for a first offense?

And I know you are not a stupid guy and you did not need me to complete the dots. It was perfectly obvious. You are just being stubborn to no end. In my opinion - and many others, not just Pats fans 0 your proposal is unncessarily harsh. So far you have given absolutely no justification for the harshness beyond the fact that you don't likle the crime. It would piss me off if someone stole something from me, but I'm not going to ask for life without parole.

Yeah, Alex, as has been noted, unless the league wants to get into the business of monitoring the tax returns of a coach for several years, the large fine is also a problematic sanction. Also, it's really hard to ignore the possible institutional role of the Pats in this. I suppose it's possible that Belichik acted completely alone, and Kraft and Pioli were completely ignorant of it, but I doubt it. It certainly would be something I'd be investigating.

Will -

You continue to flagrantly ignore two things in your arguments:

(1) The entirety of anyone's argument or arguments that refute your own. Instead, you focus on (for example) things like: "you said that I said that losing the draft was no big deal, of course it's a big deal!" when everyone has moved beyond that point and is trying to have a debate over the merits of extremely harsh sentencing.

(2) What "the crime" actually was and what impact it had. You seem to imply (and even as I write this, I'm positive that if you don't think it's what you've implied, your response, if you have one, will deal ONLY with this one point, as opposed to my argument as a whole, or at least that's how you've conducted yourself so far) that the stealing of signs was the issue here... when in fact, it's the taping. Now, perhaps you're saying that the taping provides so much further review that it confers a huge competitive advantage... but it's impossible to determine what effect this has had on the games that have been played.

But that really doesn't seem to matter to anyone... to the Pats homers, it's definitely a minor issue. For the Pats hater, its implications are vast and practically limitless (strangely, precisely because we don't know what the implications/advantages are).

A number of people have written lengthy, well-reasoned arguments that are essentially ignored by both of the two extremes in this argument, which is disheartening. At ESPN, sure. Here? And yes, the counter-argument should be that Schatz and Simmons were the ones that started it... but it was a discussion between Pats fans trying to make themselves feel better. And while they don't necessarily acknowledge that 100%, nor are many of their "apologist" arguments 100% without merit simply because of the number of them or the context.

But really, the debate about losing an entire draft class is a pointless, and silly one.

First of all, it's not going to happen, however much Will wants it, because it's an outrageous punishment for which there is no precedent and for which there was no warning. When a non-specific recompense is threatened if one breaks a rule, it's implied that the punishment will then fit the crime, not that punishment will be brought down with severe repercussions beyond anything seen before in football to act as a deterrent.

Second, because this was a first offense. "What?! No! Look at all the damning evidence that's coming out! Look at all the accusation! This couldn't have been the first time!"

Of course it hasn't been the first time, just as of course not all the accusations are entirely (or at all) accurate and just as they're not the only team to be doing this or something like it. They'll get hit hard for their reputation and for the actual crime, but unlike the fanatics here, it will be appropriately measured because just as you can't punish them for unsubstantiated claims you can't under punish them just because you hypothesize that they're not alone out there.

Third, because there's not really a debate going on. One side of the argument is attempting to have a discussion about the merits of punishments fitting crimes (which is a fantastic discussion, in theory, and applicable to things like: capital punishment), and the other side is arguing for a specific severe punishment, and for the theory that supports that punishment (NOT the theory behind the theory that supports harsh sentencing). So the "argument" simply goes in waves of: "here's a list of all the things you've just said and my counterarguments to them" and "you said one thing here that seems to contradict another thing you said there which doesn't address why i said this."

And while it's fairly clear on which side of this argument I come down on... I hardly figure this post will do anything to help those irrationally blinded by homerism or rage to pay it any more note than they did, say, Irish Boy's post.

But at least I feel better now.

Purds,

On a radio show, I believe with WEEI, Peter King stated that Indy was reknowned for being probably the best team at stealing defensive signs.

OMO:
"There is a left side blitz.

The signal was: belt, left hand up, fist pump.

Anoter left side blitz, signal was belt, both hands up, fist down

Another left side blitz, signal was belt, hands down, fist across.

Belt=left side blitz.

Your equational result is built to determine each and every sign…learning any advantage like a left side blitz is still a significant advantage."

You're making my point. Thats 3 signals that are completely different, and you need 3 plays to figure out just one symbol. Now string that out to 4 symbols:

Belt, left hand up, mustache, fist pump

Left side blitz, etc

belt, left hand up, mustache, fist down

left side blitz

belt, left hand up, no mustace, fist down

left side blitz

belt, left hand up,, mustache, fist up

left side blitz

belt, right hand up, mustache, fist up

Is a blitz coming or not?

This is not trivial to figure out, and requires a significant amount of plays. These symbols are designed so that someone watching them can't figure them out before a game is over. This isnt about stealing signs, as everyone does that. The signs are complicated. Its about archiving them so you can use multiple games worth of plays to figure them out.

No, Oswiek, an analogy which supposes a condition which does not exist is inapt. Why is it arrogant to state that?

Now, your revised analogy is also inapt, given I have not proposed that Belichik be given a lifetime ban. Look, I'm not being argumentative here for no reason. If you want to put forth an analogy, how about this; Pacman Jones violated the clear requirement that all arrests be reported to the league office, a requirement which did not entail a clear penalty. Goodell then used his discretion to impose a one year ban.

I'm proposing that that the Pats drafting be suspended for one year. You haven't established that such a sanction is too harsh,any more than I have established that it is appropriate. The question does not lend itself to empirical measurement.

Derek,

Where am I on the homer scale? From 1-10, I'm hoping I'm something like a 4...

I know I'm a homer, maybe enough to downplay this a bit. Since I feel that many teams in the league steal signs (I mean, did everyone forget about the Dolphins and the supposed tape of Brady last year?), I think the major focus of this is the 'no videotaping' rule. I'm not saying it's right because everyone else does it, or that it didn't provide much of an advantage. They got caught, they should be punished. But I don't see punishing them over-the-top for videotaping when the same accomplishment could've been achieved with a few people carrying notebooks, pens and binoculars.

As such, I'm fine with a 1-4 game suspension of Belichick (how about schedule so he comes back the week we face Indy? :P), a fine, and loss of a 1st rnd draft pick and a second day, or maybe even a 1st round in this and the next year.

But to think that they'd ban them from the playoffs, or take away an entire draft, or anything like that is ridiculous in my opinion. It is merely the fact that the Pats have been doing well that fuels the suspicion that they've cheated for years and it's the only reason they've won, which I find to be BS, frankly.

Will,

Do you think it would have been fair if Pacman Jones was suspended for a year after the first arrest wasn't reported? Or do you think the multiple arrests may have had something to do with it?

Will, you have an inept understanding of what an analogy is, you're flat wrong.

You're cherry-picking with your example, but analogies do not, and in fact ARE NOT SUPPOSED to necessarily be "equivalent."

He offered an example of an overly harsh sentence, you disagree that the sentence YOU propose is overly harsh, therefore, your response should be: I disagree with your analogy because while you present an example of a clearly overtly harsh sentence, I don't feel that the one I propose is. Please explain how a one-year draft ban is too harsh for this crime.

If you'd like, I'll offer my reasons.

Speaking about the Minnesota Timberwolves, how blatant was the cheating? The penalty seems far too harsh.

Of course the penalty was too harsh, this is David Stern we're talking about. The guy's an absolute tyrant. He makes Goodell look like a softie that doesn't have the heart to really punish someone.

Seriously, I'm pretty sure David Stern instituted a rule that assesses a technical foul every time a player doesn't have his shirt tucked in all the way. I'm not even kidding. Let that sink in a little: a player could get ejected from the game for getting caught with his shirt not completely tucked in a couple times. In the NFL, uniform violations get you, what, a 10-15 yard penalty? And he's having people ejected from the game for that stuff?!

Comparing severity of punishments with what David Stern would do is like asking "Would you say that that corporation was being ruthless in firing a bunch of employees for failing to keep track of their paper clip usage? I wouldn't say so, Attila the Hun did stuff that was way more ruthless than that when we placed cities under siege."

I propose that the NFL swing a second pick from the Pats to the Jets, and make Belichick wear a tux on the sidelines for the rest of the year. We can all get behind the second part of that, right?

The first part actually seems like a brilliant idea. Punish them by taking away a significant draft pick, and help the team they cheated against, who just happens to be a division rival, so it will hurt the Pats twice as much next year.

The second part, I'm afraid, I'll have to disagree with. I'm pretty sure there's something in the Constitution forbidding cruel and unusual punishment, and even if there weren't, that just seems too much. You could take away their entire draft, but forcing Belichick to wear a tuxedo?! I'm sorry, I don't think I could deal with seeing Belichick coaching in a suit.

Lngrrrrrrrrrrrrrr -

I think you're being insanely rational with your dissection of the issue here and offering a punishment that makes far too much sense.

Something like you suggest is where I feel the punishment should come down... Draft picks are of inestimable value, and taking all of them away would cripple a franchise. However, taking some away causes inestimable, but real damage, just as the taping created an inestimable, but real advantage. Further, suspending Belichick will provide direct punishment to him in the form of lost money, and punishment to the team to which he conveyed the advantage, by separating him from them. I think four games is a bit on the harsh side, but I think an argument could be made for it. Taking away a draft and scuttling a franchise, one that pours a disproportionate amount of money into the NFL? Not so much.

Re #2: I was thinking the exact same thing. I especially hated Simmons' whole "I stole Lawrence Taylor's nickname" shot at LT; as if Tomlinson isn't twice the good sports figure for kids as Taylor EVER was, the bottom line is the media gave "LDT" the LT moniker, didn't they? If not, they sure stuck with it and promoted it beyond belief...

Oh well, Chicago spent too much effort talking before their Bolts game and not enough time playing football Sunday, maybe the same will prove true for the Pats.

Derek, if you assert that I have said "x", when I have not said "x", but precisely the opposite, how am I to respond, other than with the observation that you are misprepresening my views? Why on earth do you presume that misrepresenting the views of the person you are engaged in dialogue with is a sound foundation for discussion?

For instance, when you state that I have implied that I think the stealing of signs was the issue, you begin the dialogue with a false premise, which greatly hinders further dialogue. Is it really asking too much for you accurately represent what I have written? Have I not stated, repeatedly, that it is Belichik's blantant disregard for clearly written instructions as to what behavior is prohibited which is most crucial?

Excuse me for ignoring the rest of your post, but when someone begins with blatant misprepresentation or inaccuracy, it really calls into question the ability or desire to have a fruitful exchange.

Re: 284 "It is merely the fact that the Pats have been doing well that fuels the suspicion that they’ve cheated for years ..."

I think you're wrong here. What leads me to conclude they been doing it for years is -

1. Mangini apparently knew about it, and the last year he was there was 2005.

2. The controversy with the Packers last year.

And I don't think anyone believes that cheating is "the only reason they've won", but it's impossible to know how much cheating has contributed to their success. To the degree that's it's contributed at all, their success is less legitimate.

I think we should send Belichick to the electric chair, fine Bob Kraft $5 billion dollars, melt down every single Patriots Super Bowl ring and be off with Brady's head. That seems like a fair punishment.

Will -

If you read my post, which you stated that you didn't, you'd see that much of the point of it was precisely that:

You refuse to read something as a whole and digest the argument that someone is making, and you cherry-pick your pointless arguments.

Where I stated what I thought your point was, I apologized if I was misrepresenting your argument. However, you could fill-in your actual argument where I falsely presented yours and my post would STILL make sense, a concept you seem incapable of grasping.

284
It is merely the fact that the Pats have been doing well that fuels the suspicion that they’ve cheated for years and it’s the only reason they’ve won, which I find to be BS, frankly.

The fact that they have been doing well for years doesn't alone fuel suspicion they've been cheating the whole time.

The fact that they've been doing well AND now have been caught cheating fuels suspicion that they've been cheating the whole time.

A key addition is the fact that Mangini knew they filmed the other team from his time on the Patriots staff, and that was back in 2005. At a minimum, the Pats did it then and have at least once since. Thus, the at least 2005 superbowl win, if not all three, can be viewed with suspicion.

And regardless of what happens now in terms of punishment, etc, nothing can be done to remove that suspicion.

Way to go, Bill.

Their not called the Stealers for nothing.

Haslett said the Steelers of the 1970s were big steroids users.

"It started, really, in Pittsburgh. They got an advantage on a lot of football teams. They were so much stronger [in the] '70s, late '70s, early '80s ... Steve [Courson], Jon [Kolb] and all those guys. They're the ones who kind of started it."

Further, Will, the entire purpose of my posting has been in the hopes of engendering fruitful discussion.

Part of having a fruitful discussion is, when someone misunderstands you, is to correct them (politely would be nice, but whatever), and to make an attempt to understand what they are saying.

You're ok with the correcting part, but I'm not sure about anything else.

Yes, Derek, the 2nd analogy was not inapt, while the first was. My apologies to Oswiek.

You have asserted that losing a year's draft would "cripple" a franchise. Please precisely define "cripple".

Will,

it is clear what you are thinking because it NE had cameras on the field videotaping for their next installment of "3 Games to Glory" you wouldn't be talking about forfeiting an entire draft. At least, I hope not.

With regard to your proposal, it is outlandishly aggressive. There is no way to dispute it because the points are:

A) A lesser punishment will be adequate to discourage future people to do it.

b) The punishment does not fit the crime.

Both of these, IMHO are true statements, but there is no way to *prove* them, so that gives you the wiggle room to continue this dispute forever.

Scott, the average NFL head coach is hypercompetitive

"hypercompetitive" suggests more competitive than average. Your hypothetical assumed a coach who was more competitive than average AND whose job was on the line.

Now you say that most any coach would break most any rule unless he feared losing a draft or two worth of picks. I see no evidence for that; such a penalty has never been handed down in the history of the NFL. Is cheating rampant? I don't see it -- the worst accusation that has been leveled is stuff like this videotaping, which is a relatively tame form of cheating.

Then you say that if a team stole its opponent's playbook that that would deserve losing five years worth of picks, whereas on a scale of 1-10 that still is only a 5. I can think of much worse and more effective ways to cheat. Heck, you can find worse examples in almost any sport. If the scale is linear, by the time you get to a level 9 or 10 you'd have to be shooting people.