I Guess the Patriots Didn't Need a 'Taping' System to Smoke the Chargers

You're right. Odds are, there isn't a team in the whole league that they would have to tape sidelines signals in order to beat them. So then why did they do it?

arrogance, which i see as a sign of belichek's insecurity. his life with the acccusation of an affair, treatment of mangini prior to the most recent game, the illegal filming show his weaknesses. many successful people has huge flaws. belichek's are becoming transparent.

RFXCrunner wrote:

You're right. Odds are, there isn't a team in the whole league that they would have to tape sidelines signals in order to beat them. So then why did they do it?

Why did they do it? I don't know. Belichick probably views it as fair game in an environment where every coach assumes the competition is 'spying' in some fashion or another. Playbooks are serialized and inventoried as if they were Top Secret government documents.

There was a good piece in Sunday's Washington Post about how spying in the NFL has a long history.

I'm not excusing Belichick's actions. Goodell believes Belichick knowingly violated an NFL rule, and Belichick and the Pats paid the price. But this is not going to stop teams from undertaking any method not specifically banned to gain intelligence on the enemy.

coach b wrote:

arrogance, which i see as a sign of belichek's insecurity. his life with the acccusation of an affair, treatment of mangini prior to the most recent game, the illegal filming show his weaknesses. many successful people has huge flaws. belichek's are becoming transparent.

Suddenly everyone hates Belichick because he's arrogant. Really?? Presumably he was just as arrogant when he was losing as head coach of the Browns. No one seemed to give a shit about his personality flaws back then.

The fact is, fans of other teams besides the Pats hate Belichick because he wins. He's a mercurial figure, to be sure, and hardly the most likeable guy. But I guarantee you San Diego fans wouldn't have been too upset if the Chargers hired Belichick away from NE to replace Schottenheimer, instead of that perennial loser Norv Turner.

Belichick is a football coach. He doesn't have to be nice and likeable. His players like him, and that's all that matters.

San Diego is getting what they deserve. Firing Marty was just plain dumb. Why anyone would replace a coach that won as many games as Marty did with Norv Turner is beyond me. Is there a shortage of good coaches in the NFL?

I don't think you have to cheat to beat a Norv Turner team.

I don't understand why teams dig up the same ol' coaches instead of giving some new talent a shot. It's ridiculous to see Norv Turner on the sidelines again, Give some of the long time assistants a shot, couldn't turn out any worse.

It's only one game.

Even with the revenge motive for SD, traveling across country to play a week after the physical Bears game (which the Chargers one), and matching up Brady and Belichek against Rivers and Turner didn't figure to be much of a contest.

RunDaddy,

The PATS are the biggest losers in the history of the sport. I lost respect for that whole org.

You could just tell this was a game the Pats decided they wanted to totally destroy the opponent. From that opening drive to when BB gave his defense a quick "pep talk" after giving up the 2nd TD, and they then came out and dropped Rivers on his ass twice for -20 yards... this team had a message to send to the Chargers ("shut the hell up") and the NFL. If they play like this every week and into the playoffs, they won't lose a game. That's pretty hard to do though. Making the Chargers look like an NFC team isn't easy and they did it for 60 minutes, didn't have trouble doing it, and didn't suffer any injuries during the process. Oh, and Seymour and Harrison aren't even on D yet.

Mel wrote:

RunDaddy,

The PATS are the biggest losers in the history of the sport. I lost respect for that whole org.

You come across as an angry crybaby. And for the record, I don't think the Patriots give a shit that they've lost your respect.

distance guy wrote:

You could just tell this was a game the Pats decided they wanted to totally destroy the opponent. From that opening drive to when BB gave his defense a quick "pep talk" after giving up the 2nd TD, and they then came out and dropped Rivers on his ass twice for -20 yards... this team had a message to send to the Chargers ("shut the hell up") and the NFL. If they play like this every week and into the playoffs, they won't lose a game. That's pretty hard to do though. Making the Chargers look like an NFC team isn't easy and they did it for 60 minutes, didn't have trouble doing it, and didn't suffer any injuries during the process. Oh, and Seymour and Harrison aren't even on D yet.

I know it's very early in the season and a lot can happen by January, but this is by far the best Patriots team Belichick has ever had. The Pats had a lot of holes last year, and they still came within a few points of going to another Superbowl. This year's team is so much better.

Randy Moss...straight cash homey.

what Belichick did was worse than anything Rose has done. No hall of fame for Belichick.

sailing_to_boston wrote:

what Belichick did was worse than anything Rose has done. No hall of fame for Belichick.

What??? Spying on the opponent is worse than betting on baseball while managing a team?? And repeatedly lying to the Commissioner about it?

If Belichick should be banned for life, than so should NFL legends like George Halas.

Get hold of yourself, man. Baseball had a zero tolerance rule on gambling on baseball. Rose knew it. There is no such policy in the NFL regarding what Belichick did. Not even in the same league as Rose.

Down play it, excuse it all you want. It was more than "spying". It was video taping signals over several years (coincidiently the same years the vaunted pats barely eeked SB wins). Not to mention the Pattys were warned several times. it is straight up cheating so. Throw an asterisk next to their SBAnd last nights doesn't prove anything, BTW. It just means Belicheck had to go the the "stolen signals" vault and review some tape. Video recording means you can watch it later.

RunDaddy wrote:

sailing_to_boston wrote:

what Belichick did was worse than anything Rose has done. No hall of fame for Belichick.

What??? Spying on the opponent is worse than betting on baseball while managing a team?? And repeatedly lying to the Commissioner about it?

If Belichick should be banned for life, than so should NFL legends like George Halas.

Get hold of yourself, man. Baseball had a zero tolerance rule on gambling on baseball. Rose knew it. There is no such policy in the NFL regarding what Belichick did. Not even in the same league as Rose.

not so fast my friend. they didn't need video taping to win. but, according to Andrea Kramer, they need wireless audio equipment to steal audibles. this cheating scandal goes a lot deeper then just some 26 year old with a video camera.

pats fans should buy tickets to Philadelphia, Charlotte and St. Louis....those teams deserve a rematch.

[quote]Pats_apologist wrote:

And last nights doesn't prove anything, BTW. It just means Belicheck had to go the the "stolen signals" vault and review some tape. Video recording means you can watch it later. [quote]

Are you saying Norv Turner wasn't smart enough to change his signals from the last game the Pats could have taped? If that's the case, don't blame Belichick if other coaches are morons.

There's a reason in baseball that coaches change the indicator inning to inning, or catchers change the signs inning to inning, or pitchers and cathcers cover their mouths when talking on the mound. Because the other team is trying to steal signs. Or 'cheating', in your world.

I don't consider stealing signals cheating. A football game is not like a calculus test.

If you consider it cheating, where do you draw the line? Can coaches try to determine the opposing team's signals during the game? Can a coach in the booth use binoculars to try and determine what the opposing team's signals are?

OK, there are limits. Teams shouldn't be allowed to steal playbooks, for example (considering that violations of the U.S. criminal code should certainly be off limits).

RunDaddy wrote:

I don't consider stealing signals cheating. A football game is not like a calculus test.

If you consider it cheating, where do you draw the line? Can coaches try to determine the opposing team's signals during the game? Can a coach in the booth use binoculars to try and determine what the opposing team's signals are?

OK, there are limits. Teams shouldn't be allowed to steal playbooks, for example (considering that violations of the U.S. criminal code should certainly be off limits).

nothing like a little moral relativism. the league drew the line. they make the rules. therefore, breaking them is cheating. why is that so unclear?

there is a history of spitballers in the MLB. Does that make it OK? Heck, half of pro track is on the juice. is it ok then?

i just answered the question why he did it. i gave my opinion. i actually like belichek, demons and all. i don't think he had to "cheat" to win games. apparently he thought he did.

RunDaddy wrote:

RFXCrunner wrote:

You're right. Odds are, there isn't a team in the whole league that they would have to tape sidelines signals in order to beat them. So then why did they do it?

Why did they do it? I don't know. Belichick probably views it as fair game in an environment where every coach assumes the competition is 'spying' in some fashion or another. Playbooks are serialized and inventoried as if they were Top Secret government documents.

There was a good piece in Sunday's Washington

Post about how spying in the NFL has a long history.

I'm not excusing Belichick's actions. Goodell believes Belichick knowingly violated an NFL rule, and Belichick and the Pats paid the price. But this is not going to stop teams from undertaking any method not specifically banned to gain intelligence on the enemy.