Not only do they use HGH, they also steal signals. And.....it was a fumble. In what surely has Vandelay's panties wetter than a dishrag, the Patriots have been cited by the NFL for violating league policies pertaining to videotaping opposing teams' coaches. Let me just say first and foremost, if it is decided that they broke the rules -- I hope the Patriots are given the maximum penalty. How stupid can you be to have your team's video assistant pointing a video camera at the defensive playcallers the entire game without thinking anyone would notice -- knowing full well it's against the rules? They are either very dumb, or very brazen (or perhaps both). Secondly, if this is a no-no, why does the NFL allow teams to have their own video equipment down on the field?
So my challenge to the AofG faithful is, what do you think the penalty should be (serious or non-serious)? Be creative.
I think they should all have to bicycle through Atlanta.
Posted by: SL22 | September 11, 2007 at 08:13 PM
The Patriots aren't allowed to play in any playoff games until Tom Brady retires.
Seriously, I'd say a forfeit. Belichick was already warned and he basically told the league he's not afraid of them. It seems like the only fair penalty. I don't really understand how the operation works and I don't know if makes that much of a difference (certainly didn't on Sunday) but that raises the question...if it doesn't give you a pretty decent advantage, why do it?
With the kind of talent the Pats have and two more 1st round picks next year, a 4th round pick is most likely just a practice squad player.
Posted by: Art Vandelay | September 11, 2007 at 08:28 PM
"Seriously, I'd say a forfeit."
I agree, Vandelay. That would to be the most fitting penalty. Draft picks seems like kind of a half-serious punishment.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | September 11, 2007 at 09:11 PM
Take the fucking rings.
That is all.
Posted by: Dr. Strangejazz | September 11, 2007 at 09:57 PM
should be similar to punishment for college programs with serious violations..no bowl game LOL
Posted by: DFS | September 11, 2007 at 10:40 PM
I'm thinking along similar lines as DFS. Since I'm more of a college football fan than NFL usually, I looked at this and my immediate thought was that this was not just (to steal David Stern's favorite phrase of late) "a rogue criminal", this was the much bigger problem that the NCAA refers to as "Lack of Institutional Control." This is the New England organization not only ignoring, but allowing and likely encouraging this to go on. To punish them with a draft pick is to tell every other team that they can decide if it is worth the risk and do it anyway. In an era of free-agency, losing a late draft pick is hardly impossible to overcome. Punish them by hitting them where it hurts the most: The bank account. If you fine and take away some of the possibilities for more revenue (whether it's TV money or going to the playoffs) you will discourage this type of behavior, because the owners may all want to win, but not as much as they want to make money.
So, there are my very uneducated thoughts on the situation.
Posted by: Craig | September 12, 2007 at 08:11 AM
I'd think a forfeit is most likely. I'd like to see a forfeit and possibly a few coaches suspended. Maybe some cash and a pick. They've got to go way overboard with this because a.) they want to avoid being lumped in with the NBA and b.) this has to be stopped now.
If I were running the NFL, I'd make the Pats put patches on their jerseys that say, "Yes, it was a fumble," and let it be.
Posted by: Assman | September 12, 2007 at 09:34 AM
Jackie, check your facts. It did not happen "the entire game" The camera was confiscated halfway through the first quarter. There is no way it had any impact on the outcome the game.
NFL team punishment consists of three types: (i) forfeit of draft picks; (ii) suspension of coaching staff; and (iii) fines. Check it out. Just because some contributors here have a hard-on for the Pats doesn't mean there should be a new punishment regime for yet another example of an NFL team trying to get a leg up.
Posted by: TMan | September 12, 2007 at 09:36 AM
Tman, you don't honestly beleve there's nothing more to this but envy, do you? I'm not gonna pretend to like the Pats but the evidence here is pretty damning.
Have you ever wondered why you can just plug no names in on that offensive line all the time and they still seem to always know when the blitz is coming? Did you ever think it was weird how a 6th round pick became so masterful at reading defenses? This is not to say I don't think Brady is a great QB...he's one of the best but you have to be at least somewhat concerned here...no?
Posted by: Art Vandelay | September 12, 2007 at 10:02 AM
"Jackie, check your facts. It did not happen "the entire game" The camera was confiscated halfway through the first quarter. There is no way it had any impact on the outcome the game."
TMan, check your facts first. It wasn't Jackie that said that -- it was me. And I wasn't aware that it was discovered during the first quarter -- so my apologies. As far as impact on the game, it's hard to tell. If they got enough footage to see what packages or adjustments the Jets were sending, then it could be very advantageous. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that a team has only one play signaler. As well, I also find it difficult to believe that the Jets wouldn't change up their signals after suspecting this was going on (not to mention being privy to the confiscation).
Still, rules are rules (i.e., tuck rules). If they're not enforced, they're pointless.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | September 12, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Jackie, check your facts. It did not happen "the entire game" The camera was confiscated halfway through the first quarter. There is no way it had any impact on the outcome the game.
I had no idea Bill Simmons was commenting on the AofG.
And if a team is stealing signals, they only need to see them a few times to know what to look for. Keep in mind that the head coach of the Pats has some familiarity with the head coach of the Jets and may have known what to look for on the sidelines and when.
Remember when Jon Gruden and Tampa Bay undressed the Raiders in the SuperBowl? (I do.) Remember when Don Nelson undressed the Mavericks last playoff season? These things matter a bit.
Posted by: Assman | September 12, 2007 at 10:15 AM
"Keep in mind that the head coach of the Pats has some familiarity with the head coach of the Jets and may have known what to look for on the sidelines and when."
But Mangini has no familiarity with Belichick and the Pats?
Posted by: Jack Klompus | September 12, 2007 at 10:37 AM
But Mangini has no familiarity with Belichick and the Pats?
Probably enough to say, "I'll bet he was doing the camcorder trick again. Call the NFL office." Both are familiar with each other, but only one saw fit to cheat.
Posted by: Assman | September 12, 2007 at 12:08 PM
"Probably enough to say, "I'll bet he was doing the camcorder trick again. Call the NFL office.""
Exactly. But coaches are already aware of this anyway. That's why they have multiple play callers and change signals constantly. Look, I'm not saying they weren't cheating. I'm also not saying their penalty should be proportional to the impact it had on the game. Going into the game with a premeditated plan to circumvent the rules is serious, whether the cheating pays off or not. But I don't believe that familiarity enhances the efficacy of the cheating any more than it prepares the victim of the cheating on how to guard against it.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | September 12, 2007 at 12:33 PM
In his PC, Belichick said they misinterpreted the rule. That of course is BS. He's got to be careful the way he approaches this. Goodell has been lied to before and surely doesn't appreciate it.
Posted by: Art Vandelay | September 12, 2007 at 12:50 PM
But I don't believe that familiarity enhances the efficacy of the cheating any more than it prepares the victim of the cheating on how to guard against it.
Fair enough. I personally think it would, but there's no evidence either way. Especially if one side goes into the game expecting the other to only use legal means to gain an advantage. If you're not expecting cheating, I'm not sure you guard against it until well after you've noticed its effects.
Posted by: Assman | September 12, 2007 at 12:50 PM
I agree with the forfeit. I also think that the coaching staff and entire team should be locked in a room with Brady's kid for three hours while the reminder-of-his-bad-relationship is having an episode of colic.
Just sayin.
Posted by: Kristal K | September 12, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Another thing to be mindful of regarding the punishment here...
In life, being likeable goes a loooong way. In any given office, any number of the people there can be fired, but the only ones that have to really worry about it are the ones that everyone doesn't like. That's why Bonds's steroid trouble is as big as it is compared to other users. It pays to be liked / respected by your peers and superiors. It just does. There's a tangible effect there.
Is Belichick liked by people around the NFL? Do they think he comes off as arrogant and prickish as some Pats haters do? If they don't like him, they could go overboard with this.
Posted by: Assman | September 12, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Jackie, my apologies.
Klompus, how would it give them an advantage during the game if the camera was confiscated by the league during the first quarter and put in a box? No one other than league personnel had access to the box. THerefore they wouldn't have access to any footage at all. So they would have to rely on the memory of an assistant video guy to tell them what means what. Seems highly unlikely to me.
Art, couldn't it be that the Jets just suck?
Posted by: TMan | September 12, 2007 at 01:08 PM
"If you're not expecting cheating, I'm not sure you guard against it until well after you've noticed its effects."
But as you noted, Mangini is familiar with the Pats and they way they do things. As well, take away the camera and you still have a human(s) watching the signals (which is not illegal). You don't think teams prepare for that? Yeah, obviously video makes it easier for the signal stealer; however, the defense against it would be about the same in either case.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | September 12, 2007 at 01:11 PM
Tman, I don't think they beat the Jets because they stole signals. There's a bigger story here and that is that this has been going on for years. I have no proof of that but if it is validated, the court of public perception is going to frown upon this "dynasty" regardless of what punishment the team gets from the league office.
Posted by: Art Vandelay | September 12, 2007 at 01:17 PM
"Klompus, how would it give them an advantage during the game if the camera was confiscated by the league during the first quarter and put in a box? No one other than league personnel had access to the box. THerefore they wouldn't have access to any footage at all."
That's assuming they were using a tape-only camera with no digital feeds. Whether or not that was the case, I don't know. We do know the Pats are also being investigated more violation of radio frequencies during that game.
That said, I think maybe I wasn't clear about the "impact of the game" point. In this game, it probably didn't affect the outcome because (a) they only had 7 or so minutes of game footage; (b) the Jets couldn't defend their way out of a wet paper bag (i.e., Moss caught a TD in triple coverage). However, it still could have forced the Jets to make more adjustments than they normally would, especially knowing that Pats were recording their first few series. It's hard to tell exactly what effect that did have. As Vandelay pointed out, if this didn't provide a potential edge, the Pats wouldn't have been trying it.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | September 12, 2007 at 01:23 PM
kick Belichek in the junk, force Tom Brady to shave his gay Abercrombie Male Model beard, and then allow Deion Branch to take a dump on a Pats jersey in public.
After that, you suspend the "Genius" and have the Police place him under house arrest with only Taco Bell to eat for an entire season and no toilet paper. That should get the point across.
Posted by: J. Peterman | September 12, 2007 at 01:30 PM
I would love to eat Taco Bell for an entire football season. God, I could go for 2 bean burritos, 2 crunchy tacos, 1 soft taco, and 1 encharito and a whole lot of fire sauce right now.
Posted by: M. Butler | September 12, 2007 at 01:53 PM
And I firmly believe that is the best Taco Bell order. Try and top it.
Posted by: M. Butler | September 12, 2007 at 01:53 PM
"There's a bigger story here and that is that this has been going on for years. I have no proof of that but if it is validated, the court of public perception is going to frown upon this "dynasty" regardless of what punishment the team gets from the league office."
Non-Pats fans already frown upon the "dynasty." This is just fodder. To attribute 3 Super Bowl victories to signal stealing is laughable at best. Also, if this has "been going on for years," wouldn't teams have found a way to stop them by now? Assuming, of course, that no other teams cheat. Soon enough, most people will forget about this. Just like they forgot (or never knew) about the Steelers getting docked a draft pick for illegal off-season practices.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | September 12, 2007 at 02:15 PM
Klompus,
I seem to recall seeing some talking head this morning mention that the Pats could have just stolen the blitz signals, which would give the Pats an advantage in pass protection until the Jets switched them up.
I didn't see the game. Was Brady pressured at all in the first half or did he have plenty of time to make throws?
Posted by: Assman | September 12, 2007 at 02:15 PM
"I seem to recall seeing some talking head this morning mention that the Pats could have just stolen the blitz signals, which would give the Pats an advantage in pass protection until the Jets switched them up."
True, but they could have done that without video. The video only would have helped if they were able to analyze it. The question is, did they have a live-feed or was it tape-only? I think it gamesmanship would have had more of an effect in this case than stolen intelligence.
"Was Brady pressured at all in the first half or did he have plenty of time to make throws?"
He had enough time in the pocket to impregnate 20 more models. But that doesn't necessarily mean the Jets were blitzing all those times.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | September 12, 2007 at 02:23 PM
"God, I could go for 2 bean burritos, 2 crunchy tacos, 1 soft taco, and 1 encharito and a whole lot of fire sauce right now."
Personally, I go for 1 Baja Beef Gordita, 1 Baja Steak Gordita, and a Nacho Supreme. But I could never eat that shit more than once a month...although I do enjoy a good crap as much as the next guy.
Remember, NO TOILET PAPER. Ever had to deal with mud butt and no means to cure it?
Posted by: J. Peterman | September 12, 2007 at 04:12 PM
I use a bidet.
Posted by: M. Butler | September 12, 2007 at 04:15 PM
Belichick should be forced to wear a suit on the sidelines.
Posted by: DSafetyGuy | September 12, 2007 at 05:26 PM
"Belichick should be forced to wear a suit on the sidelines."
Or a sports bra.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | September 12, 2007 at 05:32 PM
If Belichek has to wear a sports bra, so does Man-Tits Mangini, Wade Philips, Romeo Crennel, Andy Reid and Bill Parcells whenever he comes out of retirement.
Posted by: TMan | September 12, 2007 at 05:51 PM
Non-Pats fans already frown upon the "dynasty." This is just fodder. To attribute 3 Super Bowl victories to signal stealing is laughable at best. Also, if this has "been going on for years," wouldn't teams have found a way to stop them by now? Assuming, of course, that no other teams cheat. Soon enough, most people will forget about this. Just like they forgot (or never knew) about the Steelers getting docked a draft pick for illegal off-season practices.
Well I think this is a bit more egregious than practicing in shoulder pads when you're not supposed to be but trying to figure out how long they've been doing this and whether or not they actually were able to catch a read on a play that turned a game around that would have eliminated them from contention is a practice in speculation. Again though, if BB could honestly say, "this team is good enough to win a Super Bowl without me implementing this operation and it will have no bearing on our success"...then why do it? There are no guarantees any way but the question certainly has to be a valid one, doesn't it?
Posted by: Art Vandelay | September 12, 2007 at 09:40 PM
"Well I think this is a bit more egregious than practicing in shoulder pads when you're not supposed to be but trying to figure out how long they've been doing this and whether or not they actually were able to catch a read on a play that turned a game around that would have eliminated them from contention is a practice in speculation."
By no means was I comparing the two in terms of severity. Obviously this is worse than shoulder pads in the offseason. My point was that while it's big news now, it will soon be forgotten (though not as quickly as the shoulder pads) -- unless of course the Patriots go on a crazy losing streak.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | September 12, 2007 at 11:44 PM
"...then why do it?"
Because every team is looking for an extra edge. Every team. That's part of the competition. Is every team violating league rules? Maybe, maybe not. Everyone's innocent until they get caught.
"There are no guarantees any way but the question certainly has to be a valid one, doesn't it?"
Of course it is a valid question. Especially when you weigh the value of the consequences against the value of the gain.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | September 12, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Of course it is a valid question. Especially when you weigh the value of the consequences against the value of the gain.
Provided that the heat was already on him and this was an opposing coach who knew about it and doesn't like the man, the risk was pretty high so we can assume that it had to be working well. Obviously, we joke about the asterisks as this is way too subjective to determine that it skewed the outcome of any season...nor do we even know if it was taking place in those seasons. I'm surprised that the media is finally on their shit because of this but nobody ever asked the question as to how a FG could take 7 seconds? That seems infinitely less subjective.
If the Pats beat the Chargers Sunday night, there will be a bunch of Pats fans screaming vindication. If the Chargers beat the Pats, there will be a bunch of Pats haters screaming "tainted". Both parties would be completely misguided.
Posted by: Art Vandelay | September 13, 2007 at 09:32 AM
I would only like to add that there is no such thing as the perfect Taco Bell order. Everything there is tied for the awesomest order ever.
Posted by: SL22 | September 13, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Too bad the Jets suck, or Mangini could have held off and gone with some misinformation against the Pats in a big spot and fucked up their whole deal.
Posted by: jackie | September 13, 2007 at 12:52 PM
So now you have it: $750,000 and a first if the Pats make the playoffs, a 2nd and 3rd if they don't. Next topic please.
Posted by: TMan | September 14, 2007 at 08:46 AM
I don't get the argument that it didn't help them win the game, or that it didn't seem to have any impact on the game. I won't argue those points, but I don't see how it is in any way a justification. The refs don't confer after they have called a penalty to discuss whether the holding or illegal block would have changed the play. If it happens, it happens and the penalty is the same. Fortunately, it appears the league shares that opinion, even if some Pats fans don't.
Posted by: Craig | September 14, 2007 at 09:11 AM
Belicheck got off with a relatively penalty. he should have been suspended 3 games and lost more draft picks. I dont want to go to " Goddell was pretty hard on the brothas but........."
Posted by: bv | September 14, 2007 at 10:22 AM
I'm still not sure why there was no suspension. Hitting rich people with fines and taking draft picks from teams that don't need them seems like a slap on the wrist to me.
Posted by: Assman | September 14, 2007 at 11:03 AM
There was no suspension because this wasn't based on all of the speculation about this going on for a long time. There was no investigation. The penalty was only assessed based off of that 10 minutes of tape of the Jets D coordinator waving his hands around. Based on the penalty, I'd have to say that evidence was pretty damning. I know a lot of people wanted a suspension but this is the biggest fine ever issued by the league and a first round draft pick (although I have no idea why it was protected).
The thing that pisses me of is that Belichick wasn't held accountable. He issued his apology and said he misinterpreted the rule. Why is nobody asking him what he misinterpreted? If any other coach in Boston tried to hide behind a statement like that, he'd be skewered. What did you misinterpret coach?
Posted by: Art Vandelay | September 14, 2007 at 11:10 AM
I'm still not sure why there was no suspension. Hitting rich people with fines and taking draft picks from teams that don't need them seems like a slap on the wrist to me.
Totally agree. Fines in the world of multi-millionaire athletes and coaches are bogus. Randy Moss had it right.
Also love how Belichik is trotting out the "I did not know it was against the rules" defense.
Laughable.
Posted by: jackie | September 14, 2007 at 11:11 AM
We musta been typing at the same time, Vandelay. Totally agree on this misinterpretation of the rules crap. From the accounts I've read, Estrella (taping dude) had a look of mortification on his face when they stopped him in the tunnel and aksed for the tape, and they had to fight with him for like an hour before he turned it over. Certainly sounds like the actions of someone who had no clue that what he was doing was illegal.
Posted by: jackie | September 14, 2007 at 11:14 AM
There was no suspension because this wasn't based on all of the speculation about this going on for a long time.
I don't care that this wasn't based on speculation. I'm saying, as an isolated incident... this warranted suspension. They could take away the fines. They could keep the picks for all I care. The folks responsible needed to be suspended.
It's not like stealing signals earned Belichick $500k. It's not like stealing signals got the team draft picks. This is something people do to win games. Fair trade off is to take them out of the games and let them play at the disadvantage for once.
And I'm not saying $750k isn't enough or that the picks aren't plenty. But to me, this is like if a dude commits murder, get fined $30 million and loses the right to vote. Thanks, but why isn't that fucker in jail too? Start with jail, then come back to the money.
Posted by: Assman | September 14, 2007 at 11:21 AM
"There was no suspension because this wasn't based on all of the speculation about this going on for a long time."
Of course. Why would there be an investigation based on past speculation?
"Totally agree. Fines in the world of multi-millionaire athletes and coaches are bogus. Randy Moss had it right."
So because they are rich, you have to find a customized punishment that will affect that particular person instead of the crime itself? What do you do then? No hanging out with Jon Bon Jovi for 12 months? No extra-marital affairs for two years?
Posted by: Jack Klompus | September 14, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Of course. Why would there be an investigation based on past speculation?
Let's see...because when you have proof that cheating did take place, all that speculation becomes more validated and it may be worth looking into. If they didn't find Pete Rose's betting slips, would they have investigated? No. If this is an isolated incident, an investogation would benefit the Pats. Without one, that speculation is always going to be there. Stealing radio frequencies...cutting off opposing teams' headsets...why not?
Posted by: Art Vandelay | September 14, 2007 at 11:48 AM
"Let's see...because when you have proof that cheating did take place, all that speculation becomes more validated and it may be worth looking into."
How in the world would you prove it, and how would you apply it in terms of impact? You couldn't do it objectively. And how would you determine who gets punished? They were able to go back and investigate Pete Rose's betting past because there was the possiblity of quantitative proof. The chances of there being hard evidence of past infractions is entirely remote. Then, you get into past accomplices. Does that mean you punish guys like Crennel, Weis, Mangini etc. because they were part of the cheating? Didn't they in essence get their respective promotions due to the success of the New England Patriots? And then you have players, too. Did they benefit from it? They certainly played a part in it. Just because you didn't create the cheat sheet, it doesn't absolve you from using the answers to ace the test. Alas, the problem with this type of investigation is that it is boundless.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | September 14, 2007 at 12:07 PM