The benefit of video taping the defensive signals

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    The benefit of video taping the defensive signals

    I hate to bring it up but I'm curious about the benefit of video taping the signals for the defensive plays.  I assume that there is a benefit to it otherwise they wouldn't have done it, but I'm trying to understand how it was used.

    It's not like the Pats Offensive Coordinator can wait until he sees the Defensive signals being sent before calling the play.  It's not like the QB can watch the defensive plays being called into the game.  And since there was a camera in plain sight pointed at the guy sending in signals, they surely would have changed the signals for the next game.

    So what was the benefit of videoing the signals? 
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from cwiegmann24. Show cwiegmann24's posts

    Re: The benefit of video taping the defensive signals

    My opinion would be that taping them isn't the primary goal, it's to let the other team know that you're taping their signals. Next time you play them, they have to spend more time changing signals. Maybe their players mix up what is actually being called, maybe the team doesn't get to emphasize some part of the gameplan because their spending time learning new signals. There could be a lot of benefits of trying to decipher how a team signals. It's like baseball. They steal signals all the time and use it to their advantage. They've been doing it for decades.
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: The benefit of video taping the defensive signals

    It's legal for teams to use video to scout everything and anything, but only from specific locations.

    The filming of calls coming in from the sideline is nothing more than scouting for tendencies and/or patterns just like it is when you may be told to film certain aspects of the on field action as well.

    Maybe a team is noted for lining up a certain way, etc, and teams like for things that might tip them off for something.

    The bottom line is, if the majroity of NFL teams felt allowing any team to use a camera during a game as being somehow an advantage, this wouldn't be legal.

    Pretty simple.

    What is captured with video scouting may or may not be beneficial.
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: The benefit of video taping the defensive signals

    In Response to Re: The benefit of video taping the defensive signals:
    Why on Earth are we talking about this.
    Posted by MVPkilla4life

    Because no one has ever clearly stated the benefit of the video taping the signals.  People made a huge deal about this - the Pat's reputation took a huge hit.  I'd like to know the video taping gave them an edge. 

    I don't see the clear benefit from video taping the defensive signals.  I'm just trying to understand what all the noise is about.
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: The benefit of video taping the defensive signals

    There shouldn't be.  There is no definitive benefit of scouting or using any kind of technology for advanced scouting.

    If someone uses "technology" 2 weeks prior to their own team's game with that team, no one ever called it "cheating".

    Funny how it only became a distinct advantage when thousands of know it all nitwit fans from other teams all of a sudden know the ins-and-outs of NFL protocol and scouting methods.

    Even Roger Goodell doesn't know jack. 

    For the millionth time, teams are jealous of NE.  A dynasty is not supposed to be formed in this era, let along show no signs of slowing down.

    All the hard work and what NE has earned is trying to be smeared due to jealousy.

    The Jets represent the one team in the AFC East that feels entitled to finally jump past NE.

    NY did what probably many or maybe just a handful were trying to do for years. And that is find some way to try to weaken NE.

    Look at all the scouts hired away from NE.  The coordinators who left.  The assistant coaches who were offered big bucks to leave. Or, look at the Pats free agents who were overpaid, left and were worse elsewhere.

    the JEts actually went as far as to hire Manboobs.  Does this not symbolize this point pretty well?

    Manboobs spent one year on the job as Def Coordinator, yet he's then qualified to be a head coach?  Laughable.  They hired him more so to try to further weaken NE's stability.

    The whole goal was to try everything and anything to weaken the Pats.  This is a fact.

    We all know this.  Polian was doing the same thing with the meetings he would have with officials about focusing on the Chuck Rule, simply because his team didn't win and he wanted more PI calls.

    Spygate is a mircocosm of this goal by jealous organizations.

    Obviously, the Jets/Pats feud goes back over a decade and they saw an opportunity to frame this particular petty spat in such a way they could force Goodell to act.

    By embarassing Goodell, the Jets and the jealous organizations could at least TRY to smear NE.

    Goodell looked like he was not in control, the Jets knew he'd have to do something, and they were successful in using this as a springboard to weaken NE.

    So, in 2007, in the heels of the Jets themselves being shut down in Foxborough in January of 2007, they saw an opportunity to ride in with the new sherriff in town.

    The public doesn't care the Jets broke Goodell's own rule.  They just want to feel better that NE is somehow at least forced to be weakened.

    I find it funny how the trolls like Underpants don't see the connection between NE winning 3 Super Bowls in 4 years, having TWO 1st rd draft picks lined up for 2008, and Goodell sending out a memo about a 30 year old rule, in 2006.

    Why was the memo sent out? Why didn't Goodell's own employees simply enforce the rule?

    Why did Taglibaue and/or Goodell's own people not know how to enforce their own rule?

    How could Matt Walsh or any video coordinator from any team, that was taping from a non-specified location on the road, be standing there "illegally" for 3 hours in broad daylight if this was really "illegal"?

    This means:

    1. The NFL officials didn't know their own rule.
    2. They were paid off.
    3. This was not illegal at all, they only made sure the tapes never left the machine for viewing.

    Why did Pitt give Walsh a specified location ACROSS FROM PITT's sideline in January of 2002 at Heinz Field in broad daylight if it was illegal or there was concern his camera could zoom in?

    Why would Pitt do that if it wasn't legal?  Wasn't Pitt just following the rules giving the road team a specified spot?

    No troll has ever had answers for these basic questions.