Friday, February 22, 2008
A Dynasty of Cheating?
The Times reports that the Pats have been consistently cheating since Belichick's day one....
The Patriots’ pattern of illicitly videotaping the signals of opposing N.F.L. coaches began in Coach Bill Belichick’s first preseason with the team in 2000, a former Patriots player said. The information was put to use in that year’s regular-season opener against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Belichick’s debut as New England’s coach.
...The Patriots appear to have continued the practice of taping opposing signals for seven years.
As much as I tease, I'd be sad if this were true, which it sure sounds like it is. There's been a lot to like about the Patriots over the last few years, and they've been a ton of fun to watch.
But Belichick is a pretty unpleasant guy, and none of this sounds out of character for him....
League officials and owners are trying to sweep this scandal under the carpet. Don't they know about the cover-up being worse than the crime?
And if you read the Times article linked to above, it sounds like this really is a big deal, because the other coaches quoted really sound offended and pretty pissed off.
[San Francisco offensive coordinator Mike Martz] took exception to the theory that the Patriots could not have gleaned much information from taping the walkthrough. He said indeed they could, but added that was not the point.
¶ 8:03 AM
The Patriots’ pattern of illicitly videotaping the signals of opposing N.F.L. coaches began in Coach Bill Belichick’s first preseason with the team in 2000, a former Patriots player said. The information was put to use in that year’s regular-season opener against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Belichick’s debut as New England’s coach.
...The Patriots appear to have continued the practice of taping opposing signals for seven years.
As much as I tease, I'd be sad if this were true, which it sure sounds like it is. There's been a lot to like about the Patriots over the last few years, and they've been a ton of fun to watch.
But Belichick is a pretty unpleasant guy, and none of this sounds out of character for him....
League officials and owners are trying to sweep this scandal under the carpet. Don't they know about the cover-up being worse than the crime?
And if you read the Times article linked to above, it sounds like this really is a big deal, because the other coaches quoted really sound offended and pretty pissed off.
[San Francisco offensive coordinator Mike Martz] took exception to the theory that the Patriots could not have gleaned much information from taping the walkthrough. He said indeed they could, but added that was not the point.
“For somebody to say that, it’s kind of disgusting,” Martz said. “The whole point is if they really cheated. To say he took some steroids and it did help or it didn’t help, that’s never the point. The point is, to all these high school coaches and high school kids and college kids, that if they did cheat, that’s the point.”
My prediction: This will eventually lead to Belichick's resignation and perhaps (temporary) suspension from football. The NFL will be forced to hang him out to dry.¶ 8:03 AM
Comments:
<< Home
This is ridiculous, Richard. There are no new revelations in the Times article (which is pretty typical for the so-called paper of record: it is usually late to a story and tries to dress up its recyclings in pontifical language to make them seem new!). All have said all along that this practice was presumed by Belichick to be ok under an interpretation of the rules, so it was going on for years -- a fact that lends credence to his claims, rather than making the situation worse. Over the years, it involved lots of other coaches, including Mangini and others now spread across the league, all of whom could be taken down if a retrospective witch-hunt goes on and on. The NFL's penalty action this year was taken after an official clarification letter had been sent out that the Pats, for some reason, did not see or heed. This is what took them over the line, and got them the big penalty.
Meeting at the Combine, all the coaches yesterday heard how the league handled the situation and agreed the matter is closed. In the larger picture, there are many visual means for teams to note and try to anticipate coaches' signals, and all teams know this and take routine countermeasures to disguise. Wishful thinking on your part that B is going anywhere. He isn't.
Meeting at the Combine, all the coaches yesterday heard how the league handled the situation and agreed the matter is closed. In the larger picture, there are many visual means for teams to note and try to anticipate coaches' signals, and all teams know this and take routine countermeasures to disguise. Wishful thinking on your part that B is going anywhere. He isn't.
# posted by 
: February 22, 2008 8:58 AM
: February 22, 2008 8:58 AM
8:58, you're leaving out the part where Belichick denies ever having watched film of other teams' sidelines or walk-thoughs. That doesn't keep with the defense you're using, which is that they did and believed it kosher.
Which is it?
Which is it?
# posted by : February 22, 2008 10:26 AM
: February 22, 2008 10:26 AM
He denied ever watching or even hearing about film of any other team's walk-throughs. He denied that the Pats ever used tape of other teams defensive signals for in-game corrections, while the game was in progress. No evidence has contradicted either of these claims. Common sense says that tapes would be pretty useless in the process of a single game. B just collects all kinds of tapes and archives them and uses them to study tendencies.
# posted by : February 22, 2008 10:38 AM
: February 22, 2008 10:38 AM
How do you deny something but simultaneously argue that it was within the rules???
# posted by : February 22, 2008 1:53 PM
: February 22, 2008 1:53 PM
I hate the Pats and Belichick but simply want thorough and fair closure to this. You're predicting further action, Rich, but the article cites no plans for further investigation. What makes you think they will change their minds?
-Egret
-Egret
# posted by : February 22, 2008 1:59 PM
: February 22, 2008 1:59 PM
1:53pm has denials mixed up. There is no inconsistency when we keep in mind that two different issues are under dicussion in the media.
(1) The Pats have denied ever doing or seeing tapes of pregame final walkthroughs. (If this proves to be untrue for Super Bowl 36 or any other game, they will be undone. But no evidence has been presented that the Pats ever did this or authorized anyone to do it, just a lot of media innuendo).
(2) DIFFERENT ISSUE: The Pats have acknowledged doing regular taping of sideline signals and archiving those tapes for use to prepare for future games. They have absolutely denied using such tapes for mid-game corrections. B has said he interpreted the rules, always, to allow this, so we can presume they did it a long time, which fits the claim they thought it was within some reading of the rules.
The full record would probably show that lots of people, including coaches on many teams, knew this sideline signal taping was being done for years, at least by the Pats and probably by others,
too. Remember, according to the Commissioner, one of the recent signals tapes turned over by the Pats showed an opposing coach waving to the camera. They knew it was happening, and of course they changed signals regularly. The Pats would have been ok if they had heeded the formal letter interpreting the rules that came out in late 2006. There are various stories about why they did not: arrogance is one. Another is that the NFL letter never made it through the organization. Again, what fits is that they had been doing this a long time, thought it was acceptable, and paid no attention -- until Mangini called them on the continued sideline taping after the formal NFL rule clarification.
The Pats paid a VERY big penalty: a first-round draft pick is a huge thing to lose. No wonder the NFL considers the case on sidelining taping closed.
Post a Comment
(1) The Pats have denied ever doing or seeing tapes of pregame final walkthroughs. (If this proves to be untrue for Super Bowl 36 or any other game, they will be undone. But no evidence has been presented that the Pats ever did this or authorized anyone to do it, just a lot of media innuendo).
(2) DIFFERENT ISSUE: The Pats have acknowledged doing regular taping of sideline signals and archiving those tapes for use to prepare for future games. They have absolutely denied using such tapes for mid-game corrections. B has said he interpreted the rules, always, to allow this, so we can presume they did it a long time, which fits the claim they thought it was within some reading of the rules.
The full record would probably show that lots of people, including coaches on many teams, knew this sideline signal taping was being done for years, at least by the Pats and probably by others,
too. Remember, according to the Commissioner, one of the recent signals tapes turned over by the Pats showed an opposing coach waving to the camera. They knew it was happening, and of course they changed signals regularly. The Pats would have been ok if they had heeded the formal letter interpreting the rules that came out in late 2006. There are various stories about why they did not: arrogance is one. Another is that the NFL letter never made it through the organization. Again, what fits is that they had been doing this a long time, thought it was acceptable, and paid no attention -- until Mangini called them on the continued sideline taping after the formal NFL rule clarification.
The Pats paid a VERY big penalty: a first-round draft pick is a huge thing to lose. No wonder the NFL considers the case on sidelining taping closed.
# posted by : February 22, 2008 5:21 PM
: February 22, 2008 5:21 PM<< Home
