Brady Freed!

Bringing in Moss, a perennial pro bowl receiver was and still would be considered bringing in a stud. The relative bargains that the organization has negotiated for Haynesworth, Dillon, Moss, Ocho, Revis etc doesn't mean these guys weren't studs. Conversely, they were all pro bowlers with baggage. Belicheck found success with a respective number of his problem child stud athletes. I'm talking football players and ability, not spending habits. The frugality of the Pats has allowed them to pad their roster with depth at key positions. Opposing GM's should learn from the Pats FO.

Nick

- - - Updated - - -

 

Rut Roh, Shaggy. http://www.wcvb.com/sports/patriots-cheating-in-spygate-far-worse-than-thought-espn-reports/35153994?utm_source=Social&utm_medium=FBPAGE&utm_campaign=WCVB%20Channel%205%20Boston&Content%20Type=Story

Probably just another story ESPN will apologize for at 2 a.m.

 

All very true, but also true that they never pay retail.

And there isn't always a stud WR sale on. The only reliable way to keep getting stud receivers is to draft and develop them (see: Packers), especially if you won't spend big FA money.

 

Too much airtime to fill is turning sports into Keeping Up WIth The Kardashians, but with jockstraps.

 

I very much doubt there will be an apology for that. This isn't some 'breaking news' blurb thrown out over a single source for currency.

This is a long form essay they have been getting together for awhile talking to dozens of sources, and going over documents from investigations that just never got much attention before. Fun in that it hurts the narrative pats fans have tried to sell about Spygate (that it was mostly legal before 2006, that it was only about camera position, blah blah blah. But also massively old news and nothing will really come of it.

The most revealing information is that the Patriots were widely suspected of being sketchy before they had won even one title. Kind of hurts the 'sour grapes' narrative when the league already felt that way before you managed to win one.

 

Chuck..."Too much airtime to fill is turning sports into Keeping Up WIth The Kardashians, but with jockstraps."

I can barely recall the days when I watched SportsCenter for highlights and scores. If the Yankees, Pats, and Lebron James disappeared, ESPN might cease to exist.

 

Let's see the EVIDENCE, otherwise it's a bunch of made up lies, like "11 out of 12 balls underinflated by 2 lbs", or "Patriots tape the Rams Superbowl walk through".

Just my opinion, but anyone who believes this shit has some kind of axe to grind.

Go Pats! Can't wait for Thursday night, cuz I am READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL!

 

you what would be funny? have BB show up the next presser dressed ad Inspector Clouseau....


and then beat the snot out of Pittsburg,,,,,

 

Interviews by ESPN The Magazine and Outside the Lines with more than 90 league officials, owners, team executives and coaches, current and former Patriots coaches, staffers and players, and reviews of previously undisclosed private notes from key meetings

Most of this report is based on evidence. Specifically a lot of it is details Matt Walsh (the first cameraman the Pats were found to have used) gave to investigators that never fully went public. Thats not even unnamed or unattributed. Its a guy who was assigned the cheating saying what he was instructed to do, saying he didn't know whether it was against the rules (it was), saying it started in 2000, and saying that among other things the cameramen were instructed to disguise their credentials and lie about what they were taping. Which of course gets verified because the guy they caught in the Jets game had taped over his credentials and lied about what he was doing.

If nothing else, those last revelations prove Belichick was lying when he said he thought it was legal it it was not used real time. Why hide/lie if its allowed?

The article also does detail a lot of conjecture (Panthers' suspicions, Martz suspicions) and is as much about Goodell trying to quell Specter's crusade as it is about the Pats. But it also cites a lot of former Pats staff with regard to the other allegations of cheating.


I agree its old news. I agree we should get on with football. But if you want to pretend nothing bad ever happened you are burying your head in the sand.

 

Taping something that is happening in front of 80,000 people...yeah that's cheating and spying.

If you pretend that the NFL and ESPN and other teams are NOT out to get the Patriots by leaking false stories and allegations, then "you are burying your head in the sand".

 

fixed.

The NFL may not be above leaks. ESPN will put out anything they have a source for even if they doubt it. Again, this is not that. This is not dubious breaking news. This is a couple of reporters researching a detailed article for the magazine. If you believe the two reporters plus everyone they interviewed had an axe to grind, and they somehow faked investigatory notes, thats up to you.

 

ESPN has no credibility. They haven't even apologized/retracted/corrected their false story about 11 balls under inflated 2 lbs below the limit, even after the Wells report documents the actual readings showing this to be a lie.

Spygate was addressed in 2007, and the Patriots and Belichick were heavily penalized for knowingly breaking the rules, as they should have been.

But Deflategate? Please.....

By the way, I am just having fun here with this topic, just keeping myself entertained. I'm not offended nor do I mean to offend, just good natured ribbing.

 

I'm not offended, nor am I seeking to offend.

I absolutely agree that Spygate is old news. But I don't mind them revisiting since there has been a lot of misinformation since. I have seen Pats fans claim spygate was just about confusion of the allowable camera angle, etc. So its good to revisit and see that, no, they completely broke the rules, and acted to hide what they were doing (hiding credentials, etc).

The other allegations from former Pats employees (sneaking into visiting locker rooms for play sheets, turning off headsets) are tougher to fully credit because they are anonymous, and those people likely work for other teams now. But it is clear that among the league other teams do not trust the Patriots, and actually go to lengthy measures to protect themselves against the Patriots. That could all be paranoia, but it is not slander as they have been taking those measures even when no one wrote about them.

Also, I'd have to doublecheck but I thought Mort finally retract the 11 balls report a few weeks ago (and finally deleted the tweet). As for who does or does not have credibility, I find its better to look at who the author is, the sources they cite, etc, than to make blanket statements about credibility. Otherwise you get into a anti-vaccer denial type scenario where you assume any scientific finding telling you a vaccine is harmless, or doesn't even contain the chemical you think is harmful must simply be a conspiracy by 'big pharma'. It is good to be skeptical and look deeper. It is less good to let your skepticism lead you to dismiss information without even really reading it in the first place.


EDIT: By the one, one of the most interesting revelations isn't really about the Pats at all, but is about Mike Martz alleging that someone at the NFL altered a statement Goodell had personal called and begged him to write to shut Specter down.

 

With Spygate it is clear that Belichick knew the new rule about not being allowed to tape from a particular spot, but he thought he could technically get away with having "Krafts Productions" do the taping instead of "The Patriots". They caught him and he paid the penalty.
It is insightful that Belichick clearly had disdain for the NFL corporate rules in that he disagreed that you could consider it spying when you are recording something that is happening in front of 80,000 spectators. This is the same disdain that lead him to wear his now famous hoodie, an article of clothing that barely fulfills the NFL dress code for coaches.

As for credibility, I judge evidence, so until there is hard evidence that the Patriots ordered low level employees to steal play sheets, I won't believe it. People say where there is smoke there is fire all the time. So I say, show me that fire, not the smoke and mirrors.

 

This is a bit of what I am talking about. You are smoothing out the spygate facts with some much spread around myths that have cropped up defending the Pats

It was NOT a new rule.

From the article:

It was illegal in 2000. And it wasn't about taping from a spot, it was about taping signals.

The only thing 'new' in '06 was because people knew the pats had done it, the league started reminding people they could not do it,

As for thinking he could technically get away with "Kraft productions", no there was no kraft productions, it was just the lie he told them to give. And they were also told to lie about what they were taping (we call that consciousness of guilt).

.

If you want to disbelieve the other allegations that is fine. But Belichick was cheating with the taping, and knew that he was cheating, and the notion of 'misunderstanding the rule' was just a lie he was allowed to get away with so the whole scandal could die.

 

You are not being accurate about the rules.
The rule states "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game."
"Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited in the sidelines".

But it does not say you can't videotape theses thing anywhere else in the stadium, and in fact all teams do videotape from designated areas.

As for the timing of when certain parts of these rules came into the NFL manual, I don't have time to dig that up right now, but those facts should be readily found.

 

I'd love to give you the full operations manual text, but the NFL apparently doesn't publish it.

But what you are suggesting is incomplete: "all video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." And all teams video from designated area, but they video the PLAYS, not the signals (because you likely could not pick them up from that angle even if you wanted to).

And your "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited in the sidelines" quote is an excerpt from a reminder email that was sent around to teams (after the first two times the Pats were caught), not from the rulebook.

If I can find you the actual rules text, I will be happy to share. But again, does not matter much. That rule was around pre-2000, and the Pats broke it for 7 years. It wasn't new, and the thing Belichick claimed to 'misinterpret' was a separate rule forbidding any taping that he interpreting to only forbid taping for use during the same game, completely ignoring the other rule, and the instructions to hide and lie.

 

Regardless, the guy will be throwing passes in 2 days.

 

Can't wait.

Deflategate has made this offseason feel 10 times as long. Well, that and 2/3 of my team retiring.

 

Boston strong!!!!