Re: Spygate or Saints worse
posted at 3/6/2012 11:08 AM EST
In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse
In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse : This is laughable - That's your proof that the NFL said the Patriots didn't gain any advantage from their activities? Good Lord. That's embarrassing. I provided proof that Goodell thinks the pats may have gained an advantage. Here are Goodell's words that the Pats were subverting fair play rules: " This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid longstanding rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field." Belichick admitted to carrying out the practice from the beginning of his tenure with the pats. Every reasonable person understands that a process that produces no value over time will cease to be a process used. Belichick never stopped the process. It had value. That value, regardless of what it was, resulted from a practice that subverted rules of fair play and honest competition. Fool yourself if you choose, but its not going to change the truth. One last thing - unfortunately for pats fans there is commentary - even from former patriots - that what the patriots did was worse than the saints. The reasons given is that there are all kinds of financial incentives given to players for game play. I think many former players see this as a part of the game. I believe that due tothe NFL's position regarding safety issues as well as the continued threat of lawsuits regarding injuries from former players that the NFL will come down harder on the saints than the pats.
Posted by UD6
No NFL teams have stopped their process of how they scout with video. This is the part you're not understanding or refuse to admit. The Colts employ a video coordinator. The Colts tell this person what to shoot during a game and it just ain't Gomer's forehead.
Why hasn't the act of filming been banned if there is some definitive way to get an advantage
The only thing NE did wrong was putting an intern on a sideline. This was a clear second chapter to NE blocking NY from filming in 2006. NY didn't even ask for rights in the playoff game (direct quote from Mangini), which in turn set up the 2007 game in NY.
It was widley rmored that Belichick was putting Estrella way out front like that to mess with Mangini and the Jets. It's not really a rumor. It's what happened. Tannenbaum was enraged and took over the feud between BB and Mangini, using it his advantage and brining it to the NFL's attention.
Good job by the Jets to try to get a punishment for something they SHOULD have been punished for a year earlier themselves, but weren't simply because NE didn't bring out into the public. GB did the same thing with NE in 2006. Whether or not NE asked for a spot or were blocked by GB at Lambeau, GB simply shut NE down. GB could have been in violation if they didn't provide a spot. We don't know the details on that one. But, it's not a big deal. You just ask NFL personnel to address it. Technically, the NFL needs to make sure the road team has a spot, but not every NFL team takes a coordinator on the road either.
We all know BB will cross the Ts and dot the Is, so he's one to build a scouting portfolio if he so chose to do so. Roger Goodell had literally no idea about this aspect of the game until the Jets/Pats feud went down. If he had, he would have dealt with the Jets in 2006.
The only concern with the memo in 2006 was positioning of the cameraman (sidelines, coach's booths, etc) because it became clear some teams were messing with one another in this area. The proof is that Goodell acknolwedged other teams were in violation of this aspect of the rule.
The location of the road team's cameraman may or may not be an advantage, but considering the home team has their preferred spots and angles, that's a pretty weak argument. The home team shoots from more than one angle. Unless you've never been to an NFL game, this is pretty obvious. The people in the non-broadcast vests are team employees.
And yes, even the Colts have multiple cameramen. The Colts.
There is no advantage unless the home team blocks the road team from filming. Even then, you're reaching, going as far as to say a video scouting group is somehow so much better than other teams' to the point it's an "advantage".
If this was a fear, there'd be no team filming of any kind. Period.
Pretend Bill Cowher has his hand raised in court when reading this:
Bill Cowher: "You know, let me just say this: To answer your question, no, I don’t think so. I just know as a head coach, you are always looking for a competitive edge. We had people out there trying to look at signals. We had guys go to games. They would tape the signal caller and also write it down. They would take it back and match up the signals with the game film and certain defenses with certain plays that were being called, particularly the defenses being called, to see if we could come up with some kind of an alert for a signal. So, what they did with videotaping the signal caller, people do it with the people in the stands!!
These people sitting there in the stands, looking at the signal, writing it down and matching up the 1st and 10 signal. Ok? Then you go back again and the 2nd and 10 and here’s the signal. You do that for a whole game.
You then go back and match up the defenses with the signal. And you can come up with what the signal was. So, you don’t need a video tape with what they were talking about doing. And people were doing it. WE were doing that. Everybody does that. You’re TRYING to gain a competitive edge. There is nothing wrong with that.
That’s why baseball players go through the mirage of signals. They’ve got all these different codes. That’s part of the competitive spirit of the game. I think it’s totally overblown. I think if you get caught (signals compromised), then do what we did and go to wristbands, so you aren'T worried about it. We started putting defenses on wristbands. Then you find a way to not get caught (signals compromised). When your good at something and people try steal from ya, I think it’s flattering."