Why Can't the Patriots Win Without Cheating?

[Franknbeans 46]

2 thoughts...

 

The only one who truly knew the extent of the Pats cheating is Goodell and he destroyed the tapes. Why?

 

If I were any fan or member of the Pats I would still be pissed at Belichick for introducing any possibility of impropriety. The bottom line is that if he is that great of a coach, he wouldn't have needed to jeapordize what the team likely earned by trying to skirt the rules. Pure arrogance on his part and it will always call into question how "great" of a coach he was and that's on him.

[IGotWorms 3,302]

2 thoughts...

 

The only one who truly knew the extent of the Pats cheating is Goodell and he destroyed the tapes. Why?

 

If I were any fan or member of the Pats I would still be pissed at Belichick for introducing any possibility of impropriety. The bottom line is that if he is that great of a coach, he wouldn't have needed to jeapordize what the team likely earned by trying to skirt the rules. Pure arrogance on his part and it will always call into question how "great" of a coach he was and that's on him.

 

I think that's fair. Belichick is a little arrogant and it has cost him and the team a few times. But, you take the bad with the good, and I'm pretty sure almost every aingle NFL team would trade their overall coaching situation over the past 12 years with the Patriots.

[murf74 461]

2 thoughts...

 

The only one who truly knew the extent of the Pats cheating is Goodell and he destroyed the tapes. Why?

 

If I were any fan or member of the Pats I would still be pissed at Belichick for introducing any possibility of impropriety. The bottom line is that if he is that great of a coach, he wouldn't have needed to jeapordize what the team likely earned by trying to skirt the rules. Pure arrogance on his part and it will always call into question how "great" of a coach he was and that's on him.

 

Destroying of tapes makes this scandal HUGE. I can guarantee if the evidence was week 3 vs. Buffalo no tapes would have been destroyed. Only a diehard Pats fan can't come to easy and logical determination that the tapes involved playoffs/superbowl type games.

 

To me it was like an inside job....example.

 

Police chief has an officer who did something illegal. Police chief immediately destroys evidence and fines him 1 months pay.

 

Investigation over, just trust them.

 

Worms is a lawyer I guess...how often is evidence destroyed immediately like they did with the tapes? What would be a real reason for destroying and not showing fans?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Destroying of tapes makes this scandal HUGE. I can guarantee if the evidence was week 3 vs. Buffalo no tapes would have been destroyed. Only a diehard Pats fan can't come to easy and logical determination that the tapes involved playoffs/superbowl type games.

 

To me it was like an inside job....example.

 

Police chief has an officer who did something illegal. Police chief immediately destroys evidence and fines him 1 months pay.

 

Investigation over, just trust them.

 

Worms is a lawyer I guess...how often is evidence destroyed immediately like they did with the tapes? What would be a real reason for destroying and not showing fans?

There is also speculation that Belichick sent them tapes of other teams doing the same thing.

[murf74 461]

There is also speculation that Belichick sent them tapes of other teams doing the same thing.

 

LOL OK Pats fan, did you guys drum that up while tailgating?

 

sure BellICheat broke into other teams coaching rooms and made copies of tapes

 

nice conspiracy theory, but sorry that one's got not chance of gaining traction

[PATSSOX 22]

So here it is PATSOX and KMBRRYANT:

- no one play makes a win or loss, "the inches we need are all around us". I remember back to a NE loss in DEN - it's probably a "top 3" loss for me - Troy Brown fumbled a punt, Adam Vinatieri missed an easy FG, and Brady threw a goal line Pick-6 (Ben Watson ran down Champ Bailey).

It's a "soup" that boils to a loss.

 

 

While I agree 100% my point is and was that at that particular point in the game it was one play that lost the game no matter what happened before. Bottom line is he catches the ball they win.

[kmbryant09 1]

Could the throw have been better...sure but Brady or Belicheck did not drop the ball. Are you just trying to pick a fight?

 

There are always alot of different individual plays you can point to in a close game but that does not change the fact that at that specific time "if" Welker hangs on to the ball the Patriots win. Again, at THAT SPECIFIC time "if" Welker hangs on to the ball the Patriots win. You can try and spin it any way you want but that is what happened. If Brady does not throw the ball away and get called for a safety do the Patriots win? Who knows but i sure as hell know that if Welker catches the ball they win. So stop trying to spin a bunch of BS.

 

Just like if Romo did not bobble the ball on the FG attempt in Seattle years ago. Does not matter what happened before that play, if Cowboys had 4 INTs it would not change the fact that at that time if Romo puts ball down and kick FG they win even though they had 4 picks. They probably didnt have 4 picks but just saying.

Oh, I didn't realize that a 25-yard pass down to the 20 yard-line with 4:00 to go in a 2 point game guarantees victory . Especially considering a FG would have still lost them the game considering the Giants scored a game-winning TD in the final minute. Again.

 

Please enlighten me more though about how that catch guaranteed victory!

 

Bull. Two to three yards to the inside would have gotten Welker killed by the safety.

Here's a still that demonstrates it;

 

My link

 

In the top half Welker has just cleared the underneath coverage and is running right up the numbers. At this point the ball is already in the air. The bottom half shows Welker leaping for the ball. Notice that the safety is RIGHT AT THE NUMBERS as the ball arrives. If Brady throws that ball "2-3 yards" to the inside, there's no chance it gets completed. It probably gets picked as a matter of fact.

 

Keep in mind, this is a pass that was 27 yards or so in the air. Brady threw it to the outside away from the safety, to the open area in the zone, just like he should have. Maybe not perfect, but pretty focking good. Wes just didn't get himself turned in time.

I don't buy that for a second. The safety is a good 5-7 yards away when the ball gets there. Plenty of room to lead Welker up the seam.

 

Not a great throw. Not a great catch. My point is Pats fans dismiss any blame from Brady and latch on to anything else that happened to place the blame.

 

Not necessarily you in particular, but Pats fans being all bent outta shape about a 10-yard drop in the 3rd quarter is just another example that they can't come to grips with how poorly Brady has played in big games and how poorly Belichick has coached in big games since 2005. Brady has taken a Safety in order to avoid being hit, has thrown 3 4th-quarter INT's in the Patriots last 2 playoff defeats, and has produced 31 TOTAL points in his last 2 SB's after averaging ~34 in the regular season. Yet all (some) Patriots fans are b!tching about is Welker's drops.

[Stewburtx8 67]

 

The only one who truly knew the extent of the Pats cheating is Goodell and he destroyed the tapes. Why?

 

 

 

THIS. If this was just an instance of the Pats taping from the wrong area, why destroy the tapes? My guess is this was a bigger issue (that may have affected playoff games/Super Bowls) and the NFL just wanted it to go away.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

LOL OK Pats fan, did you guys drum that up while tailgating?

 

sure BellICheat broke into other teams coaching rooms and made copies of tapes

 

nice conspiracy theory, but sorry that one's got not chance of gaining traction

 

This speculation came from Mike Florio of Profootballtalk.com back in February 23, 2008.

 

Regardless of whether the Patriots did or didn’t videotape the Rams’ walk-through practice prior to Super Bowl XXXVI, it’s not the first time that such allegations have been raised.

 

As Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports wrote in the days following the discovery that the Pats were taping defensive coaching signals during a Week One game against the Jets, the Broncos were suspected at one time of secretly videotaping Chargers practices.

 

Wrote Cole: “The San Diego Chargers increased their security several years ago at a hill overlooking the practice field at the team facility during weeks when they played the Denver Broncos. Why? It turns out Broncos coach Mike Shanahan had been hiring spies to videotape the Chargers practices. The NFL had been aware of it for several years (at least one NFL official had seen one of the tapes), but didn’t step in because it was considered a team issue.”

 

Such stories tend to support the rumor that Patriots coach Bill Belichick included with the materials surrendered to the league extensive evidence of cheating by other teams.

[MDC 5,878]

This thread would've worked better as a declarative statement: the Patriots can't win without cheating.

 

Truth.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Sh!t; does anyone really believe that old Billy B. is actually playing by the rules now?

 

Hell, no. He's just going to be a lot more careful now.

[jaxjag 43]

Destroying of tapes makes this scandal HUGE. I can guarantee if the evidence was week 3 vs. Buffalo no tapes would have been destroyed. Only a diehard Pats fan can't come to easy and logical determination that the tapes involved playoffs/superbowl type games.

 

To me it was like an inside job....example.

 

Police chief has an officer who did something illegal. Police chief immediately destroys evidence and fines him 1 months pay.

 

Investigation over, just trust them.

 

Worms is a lawyer I guess...how often is evidence destroyed immediately like they did with the tapes? What would be a real reason for destroying and not showing fans?

 

You're so biased, it's funny.

 

What is the significance of a Week 3 game with Buffalo?

 

As a neutral observer, I'm not sure why people take issue with Goodell destroying the tapes. What is he supposed to do with them? Store them in the NFL's safety deposit box? You call it evidence like its a murder investigation. Its an internal NFL issue; there's no jury or trial. They have no value once Goodell has reviewed them, determined their content and metered out his punishment. There isn't going to be an appeal. It makes all the sense in the world to destroy them; No different than shredding a document. I'm sure the NFL wouldn't want the media circus of them going missing, etc.

[jaxjag 43]

THIS. If this was just an instance of the Pats taping from the wrong area, why destroy the tapes? My guess is this was a bigger issue (that may have affected playoff games/Super Bowls) and the NFL just wanted it to go away.

 

Why keep them?

[murf74 461]

You're so biased, it's funny.

 

What is the significance of a Week 3 game with Buffalo?

 

As a neutral observer, I'm not sure why people take issue with Goodell destroying the tapes. What is he supposed to do with them? Store them in the NFL's safety deposit box? You call it evidence like its a murder investigation. Its an internal NFL issue; there's no jury or trial. They have no value once Goodell has reviewed them, determined their content and metered out his punishment. There isn't going to be an appeal. It makes all the sense in the world to destroy them; No different than shredding a document. I'm sure the NFL wouldn't want the media circus of them going missing, etc.

 

Neutral observer? You have been sucking off Pats for years.

 

You realize if this got out it would ruin his league with fans and most importantly with Vegas.

 

Goodell proves consistently he cannot be trusted. Maybe you didnt notice the Saints debacle.

 

Why would it be a circus if media got hold of it? Oh thanks for proving my point right there.

 

If tapes are no big deal why worry about media having it?

[jaxjag 43]

Neutral observer? You have been sucking off Pats for years.

 

You realize if this got out it would ruin his league with fans and most importantly with Vegas.

 

Goodell proves consistently he cannot be trusted. Maybe you didnt notice the Saints debacle.

 

Why would it be a circus if media got hold of it? Oh thanks for proving my point right there.

 

If tapes are no big deal why worry about media having it?

 

If "this got out"... Isn't it already out? Why do you presume there is something above and beyond what has been reported?

 

The tapes get lost/stolen; someone tries to get rich selling them to a network; and the incident is back in the public eye. Do you think the NFL, the most successful sports league on the planet, wants any controversial publicity? You tell me... why keep them, once they've served their purpose?

 

My allegiance is in Florida. I actually root for the Dolphins in the East. I have no problem with the Pats or Belichick or even Rex Ryan, for that matter. To me, its all the NFL and I've been following it for more than 40 years. I've seen teams/players come and go. If I take their side in an issue, its because I believe in that side of the argument. It's not a blind allegiance to laundry.

 

You, on the other hand, run to your keyboard to start a thread every time there is a sliver of negative news. Yeah, we needed a new thread on Marshall Faulk claiming he got jobbed. Let me guess, you wouldn't do the same thing if it were the Seahawks talking about the officiating in their SB loss.

 

We can discuss this without terms like "sucking off"... unless you have some type of oral fixation.

[murf74 461]

If "this got out"... Isn't it already out? Why do you presume there is something above and beyond what has been reported?

 

The tapes get lost/stolen; someone tries to get rich selling them to a network; and the incident is back in the public eye. Do you think the NFL, the most successful sports league on the planet, wants any controversial publicity? You tell me... why keep them, once they've served their purpose?

 

My allegiance is in Florida. I actually root for the Dolphins in the East. I have no problem with the Pats or Belichick or even Rex Ryan, for that matter. To me, its all the NFL and I've been following it for more than 40 years. I've seen teams/players come and go. If I take their side in an issue, its because I believe in that side of the argument. It's not a blind allegiance to laundry.

 

You, on the other hand, run to your keyboard to start a thread every time there is a sliver of negative news. Yeah, we needed a new thread on Marshall Faulk claiming he got jobbed. Let me guess, you wouldn't do the same thing if it were the Seahawks talking about the officiating in their SB loss.

 

We can discuss this without terms like "sucking off"... unless you have some type of oral fixation.

 

Yeah, a video of cheating from 3 superbowl won by 3pts wouldn't have any affect on the league. You are delusional.

 

I don't hide behind my screename. I don't like the Pats, but there is no doubt whatsoever that you are totally a pats fan, one of the most vocal ones here too.

[jaxjag 43]

Yeah, a video of cheating from 3 superbowl won by 3pts wouldn't have any affect on the league. You are delusional.

 

I don't hide behind my screename. I don't like the Pats, but there is no doubt whatsoever that you are totally a pats fan, one of the most vocal ones here too.

 

My stance is not so much pro-Patriot as it is anti-idiocy. This entire thread is an attempt to bust people's chops. And the topic has been rehashed far too many times. I would much rather see discussion on fantasy topics. But this is what you guys like to talk about.

 

The difference between us is I don't hate any teams. Maybe that's a level of maturity, or the result of playing fantasy football and maybe its from not having my teams in the post season very often. You have to develop a rooting interest. Yes, I admire prolific offense such as the Patriots and Saints. I like the Seahawks and 49ers defense too. I would have liked the Redskins to win it all this year (OK, it was unlikely). They (and John Riggins) broke my heart years ago but I could still root for them. Someone has to win the SB.

 

You're fixated on the Patriots. You've convinced yourself that Goodell destroyed tapes of SB deceit. You have nothing to back that up but you act like its a fact. Stop and think about all the things you complain about and you might realize that you have a problem.

 

Did NE go off a cliff at the start of 2007? No, actually they set scoring records; won more than their fair share of games; went 11-5 with a backup QB; went to conference championships and even 2 SBs. This is factual stuff. But, in your world, anything short of a SB is evidence that all their success came from videotaping. That isn't logical. They didn't win a SB. They didn't win in 2005 or 2006 either. What was the reason? It's not easy to win in the NFL. Other teams adapt; coaches move on and players turn over. In my opinion, The Patriots biggest problem was the erosion of their defense.

 

Here's a quote from Jet's coach, Eric Mangini, a former assistant in NE:

 

"I didn’t think it was any kind of significant advantage, but I wasn’t going to give them the convenience of doing it in our stadium, and I wanted to shut it down."

 

Five years later he added:

 

"I think when you look at the history of success that [the Patriots] had after that incident, it’s pretty obvious that it didn’t play any type of significant role in the victories [the Patriots] had or the success that [the Patriots] had." As of the conclusion of the 2011 NFL season, the Patriots had the best record in the NFL since Spygate, compiling a 48-16 record from 2008-11 (the Pittsburgh Steelers and New Orleans Saints were second best over that span at 45-19).

 

And this quote from Jimmy Johnson after footage from the actual tape was aired on Fox NFL Sunday on September 16:

 

"This is exactly how I was told to do it 18 years ago by a Kansas City Chiefs scout. I tried it, but I didn't think it helped us." Johnson also said, "Bill Belichick was wrong because he videotaped signals after a memo was sent out to all of the teams saying not to do it. But what irritates me is hearing some reactions from players and coaches. These players don't know what their coaches are doing. And some of the coaches have selective amnesia because I know for a fact there were various teams doing this. That's why the memo was sent to everybody. That doesn't make [belichick] right, but a lot of teams are doing this."

 

I know you don't trust Roger, how about Mangini and Johnson?

[murf74 461]

 

The difference between us is I don't hate any teams.

 

The reason you don't hate teams is cause you pretty much like them all it appears now.

 

Most fans have one favorite and at least one rival they hate.

 

Find a Browns fan that doesn't hate Steelers....bears fan that doesn't hate packers....skins fan that doesn't hate cowboys

 

Hating another nfl team is pretty darn common, not a level of immaturity

[jaxjag 43]

The reason you don't hate teams is cause you pretty much like them all it appears now.

 

Most fans have one favorite and at least one rival they hate.

 

Find a Browns fan that doesn't hate Steelers....bears fan that doesn't hate packers....skins fan that doesn't hate cowboys

 

Hating another nfl team is pretty darn common, not a level of immaturity

 

Beg to differ... many people dislike the Ravens because of Ray Lewis but there is also Boldin, Ray Rice and Torrey Smith. Life is too short to fixate on one or two guys or a single incident.

 

The AFC East has been ruled by NE for some time - I don't blame them. I blame the half assed Miami ownership group that makes bad decision after bad decision. Pass on Brees. Ted Ginn with the 9th pick of the draft. Giving up draft picks for other team's back-up QB...

 

If you want a little hate, I'll give you some. I think the Colts tanked 2011 to land Luck. No way does that team deserve the first overall pick. Does that make you feel better?

[kmbryant09 1]

I don't want to turn this into a 1-on-1 conversation, so don't shoot the messenger; but I want to circulate an idea that just came to me. Not sure if I even buy into it, but curious what everyone else's thoughts are. My apologies if this seems a bit all-over-the-place.

 

They were caught in 2006, so 2007 was their first full off-season/regular season without "cheating/using tapes/catching signals". They allegedly taped signals during the Rams' offense running red zone drills in 2003 (I think); and they did of course shut down that great offense. But the Patriots' philosophy took a major shift from 2006-2007 - they went from a defensive team to an offensive juggernaut. Brady went from throwing 220 yards a game and 24 TD's a season to throwing 350 yards and 50 TD's a season. The team traded for Wes Welker and Randy Moss and basically revamped their entire team. Was this major change a result of losing the 2006 AFCCG to the Colts? Possibly. Bu they had still won 3 SB's in the past 5 years, so why change what was working.

 

Anybody think it's possible that the Patriots realized they had lost a defensive advantage by being exposed in SpyGate? And attempted to make up the difference, realizing that they now needed to score more than 17-24 points to win games?

 

I just thought it was interesting when you connect the dots. Why would a team that had won 3 out of the last 5 Superbowls feel the need to completely change their philosophy and the make-up of their team?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I don't want to turn this into a 1-on-1 conversation, so don't shoot the messenger; but I want to circulate an idea that just came to me. Not sure if I even buy into it, but curious what everyone else's thoughts are. My apologies if this seems a bit all-over-the-place.

 

They were caught in 2006, so 2007 was their first full off-season/regular season without "cheating/using tapes/catching signals". They allegedly taped signals during the Rams' offense running red zone drills in 2003 (I think); and they did of course shut down that great offense. But the Patriots' philosophy took a major shift from 2006-2007 - they went from a defensive team to an offensive juggernaut. Brady went from throwing 220 yards a game and 24 TD's a season to throwing 350 yards and 50 TD's a season. The team traded for Wes Welker and Randy Moss and basically revamped their entire team. Was this major change a result of losing the 2006 AFCCG to the Colts? Possibly. Bu they had still won 3 SB's in the past 5 years, so why change what was working.

 

Anybody think it's possible that the Patriots realized they had lost a defensive advantage by being exposed in SpyGate? And attempted to make up the difference, realizing that they now needed to score more than 17-24 points to win games?

 

I just thought it was interesting when you connect the dots. Why would a team that had won 3 out of the last 5 Superbowls feel the need to completely change their philosophy and the make-up of their team?

 

The Pats had signed Moss & Welker and went down the path of more explosive offense prior to Spygate. They did not change their defensive philosophy, but their playmakers were getting older. HTH.

[kmbryant09 1]

The Pats had signed Moss & Welker and went down the path of more explosive offense prior to Spygate. They did not change their defensive philosophy, but their playmakers were getting older. HTH.

I won't pretend to know the details, but I'm guessing the Patriots knew that the league was looking into the SpyGate scandal well ahead of time.

 

Anyone know when the league decided to begin the investigation compared to the league year and Patriots' acquiring Moss/Welker?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I won't pretend to know the details, but I'm guessing the Patriots knew that the league was looking into the SpyGate scandal well ahead of time.

 

Anyone know when the league decided to begin the investigation compared to the league year and Patriots' acquiring Moss/Welker?

The league got involved when Mangina ratted them out after Week 1 in 2007. They did not change philosophy due to a potential Spygate situation.

[TD Ryan2 314]

But the Patriots' philosophy took a major shift from 2006-2007 - they went from a defensive team to an offensive juggernaut. Brady went from throwing 220 yards a game and 24 TD's a season to throwing 350 yards and 50 TD's a season. The team traded for Wes Welker and Randy Moss and basically revamped their entire team. Was this major change a result of losing the 2006 AFCCG to the Colts?

it was a significant factor.

You know all too well that Bill Polian was on the competition committee and NE was furious at the "no contact" officiating - that was not NE's game, they won by being physical, by beating up the Rams and Colts, but it became very obvious that the league wanted more passing and would favor passing teams.

 

That and the aging defensive players lead to a philosophy shift in NE.

 

Do you think they made a bad decision on changing their philosophy?

Do you think that any team that can't pass heavily can still win in today's NFL?

 

 

also, thank you jaxjag for posting all that stuff that I'm just not going to bother to - convincing murf that Goodell didn't destroy tapes of NE "cheating" in SBs is like trying to convince Mr Steak that George Bush did not blow up the Trade Center - both ideas are conspiracy nonsense that is not supported by any facts of logic.

[Me_2006 14]

Mike, you should pay me to post on the mange bored more often. This place needs me to inspire discussion.

[murf74 461]

it was a significant factor.

You know all too well that Bill Polian was on the competition committee and NE was furious at the "no contact" officiating - that was not NE's game, they won by being physical, by beating up the Rams and Colts, but it became very obvious that the league wanted more passing and would favor passing teams.

 

That and the aging defensive players lead to a philosophy shift in NE.

 

Do you think they made a bad decision on changing their philosophy?

Do you think that any team that can't pass heavily can still win in today's NFL?

 

 

also, thank you jaxjag for posting all that stuff that I'm just not going to bother to - convincing murf that Goodell didn't destroy tapes of NE "cheating" in SBs is like trying to convince Mr Steak that George Bush did not blow up the Trade Center - both ideas are conspiracy nonsense that is not supported by any facts of logic.

 

What games were destroyed? If you send me a link of which games were destroyed I will apologize to all and admit I was totally wrong. And will never call pats cheaters again.

 

So please link me to which games Bill cheated in.

 

Thanks in advance

 

BTW this request goes out to all y'all.

[jaxjag 43]

What games were destroyed? If you send me a link of which games were destroyed I will apologize to all and admit I was totally wrong. And will never call pats cheaters again.

 

So please link me to which games Bill cheated in.

 

Thanks in advance

 

BTW this request goes out to all y'all.

 

Murf,

 

Obviously you're going to believe what you want to believe.

 

I'll give you my take... It's not illegal to tape signals. Surprisingly, many people don't understand the previous sentence. I imagine every team in the league puts a certain amount of effort into intelligence gathering. Be it signals, tendencies, what have you. As I said in an earlier post, the Falcons admitted earlier this season of having 6 years data on referees.

 

It is only the location of video taping that is restricted. As Mangini said, "the convenience". It can't be in a location where the footage is available to the coaching staff during the game. Belichick's "explanation" is that he thought that he was within the rules because they didn't use the tapes during the game. Did Belichick simply misinterpret the rule? Who knows? This particular rule is not in the Rule Book but something called the Operations Manual. But, one would think, that with the letter from Goodell, BB could/would/should have been well aware of the rule. They fine him; they took away a draft pick. Seems like a fair penalty to me.

 

Certainly, the Patriots violated the rule. They video taped from the sideline. But did they violate the intent of the rule, Ie. use the information (in game) to gain an advantage? The league says "no" based on interview with Belichick and the videographer. You don't have to accept this but I suspect it would be difficult logistically to analyze them mid-game and to use them immediately. More likely, it became part of their overall "film study".

 

BB is a thorough guy. Why would he do it? Thorough people do this type of thing. I don't think it is more complicated than that.

 

Jimmy Johnson claimed this happened around the league. I believe him. I also don't think "Bounty Gate" is unique to the Saints.

 

When I was 13 and playing Senior League baseball we had a slick pick-off play at second base. We had a system where the manager didn't give the signals but a different bench player each game. If we went to that length to disguise our signals at such an amateur level, what do the pros do? Ultimately, one would think any team worth their salt would have measure in place to address sign stealing.

[edjr 5,547]

the thread calling out the steelers for cheating in the 70's after 2 pages is locked, yet this thread and others continue on and on.

[RoadLizard 73]

I don't want to turn this into a 1-on-1 conversation, so don't shoot the messenger; but I want to circulate an idea that just came to me. Not sure if I even buy into it, but curious what everyone else's thoughts are. My apologies if this seems a bit all-over-the-place.

 

They were caught in 2006, so 2007 was their first full off-season/regular season without "cheating/using tapes/catching signals". They allegedly taped signals during the Rams' offense running red zone drills in 2003 (I think); and they did of course shut down that great offense. But the Patriots' philosophy took a major shift from 2006-2007 - they went from a defensive team to an offensive juggernaut. Brady went from throwing 220 yards a game and 24 TD's a season to throwing 350 yards and 50 TD's a season. The team traded for Wes Welker and Randy Moss and basically revamped their entire team. Was this major change a result of losing the 2006 AFCCG to the Colts? Possibly. Bu they had still won 3 SB's in the past 5 years, so why change what was working.

 

Anybody think it's possible that the Patriots realized they had lost a defensive advantage by being exposed in SpyGate? And attempted to make up the difference, realizing that they now needed to score more than 17-24 points to win games?

 

I just thought it was interesting when you connect the dots. Why would a team that had won 3 out of the last 5 Superbowls feel the need to completely change their philosophy and the make-up of their team?

 

Thats a solid theory and well stated. The Rams Superbowl was the bonafide "BS" super bowl of The Pats whole run. They shouldnt have even been there to begin with ala tuck rule. Then, they get there and *somehow* shut the Rams offense down....in a DOME no less. Coaching excellence? Maybe, but most signs point towards "knowing some stuff" maybe other teams didnt.

 

Overall, a well thought out post.

[kmbryant09 1]

Thats a solid theory and well stated. The Rams Superbowl was the bonafide "BS" super bowl of The Pats whole run. They shouldnt have even been there to begin with ala tuck rule. Then, they get there and *somehow* shut the Rams offense down....in a DOME no less. Coaching excellence? Maybe, but most signs point towards "knowing some stuff" maybe other teams didnt.

 

Overall, a well thought out post.

Thanks, although based on the responses I may be wrong, hah!

 

Like I said, I was just connecting the dots on a very broad level and opening up the idea for discussion. If the Moss/Welker signings did in fact take place LONG before the Patriots were ever informed of any investigation that led to SpyGate, than my theory is completely wrong.

 

But I just remember those 2 moves and such head-scratchers at the time. The Patriots were a defensive-minded, grind-it-out ball club that won on defense, being tougher than the other team, and making big plays in close games. That strategy/execution won them 3 SB's in 5 years. Than they turn around, and acquire (2) sexy players that really fit the mold of the type of players the Patriots typically beat up on. The fact that it happened in the same time frame as the Spygate - I just thought it was worth discussing.

 

And to those people who point to Belichick's thoroughness as a reason why he's probably more innocent than guilty. Really? Bill Belichick seems like a control freak who knows everything that goes on in the organization from what play-call adjustments the secondary makes in the 2nd half, to what type of laundry detergent the cleaning crew washes the uniforms with. It's part of what makes him great. He does everything for a reason. Everything has a purpose. He pushes the envelope further than anyone else when most of the league hasn't even evaluated a certain situation. If Belichik and his crew were taping signs from an illegal point of view (or even a grey area), it was because Bill Belichick thought it would give his team an advantage. It's part of what makes him a great coach, but also what makes it hard to believe that Bill's camera crew "just happened" to be taping signals from the wrong spot.

[Franknbeans 46]

the thread calling out the steelers for cheating in the 70's after 2 pages is locked, yet this thread and others continue on and on.

they can smell the BS a mile away

[southcarolina 166]

If the Moss/Welker signings did in fact take place LONG before the Patriots were ever informed of any investigation that led to SpyGate, than my theory is completely wrong.

 

But I just remember those 2 moves and such head-scratchers at the time. The Patriots were a defensive-minded, grind-it-out ball club that won on defense, being tougher than the other team, and making big plays in close games. That strategy/execution won them 3 SB's in 5 years. Than they turn around, and acquire (2) sexy players that really fit the mold of the type of players the Patriots typically beat up on. The fact that it happened in the same time frame as the Spygate - I just thought it was worth discussion.

 

 

I wouldnt classify acquiring Welker or Moss as a sexy free agent acquisition.

 

Moss had plenty of critics who thought he was done, and that the Patriots were insane to acquire him. As an active member of a large-ish Patriots MB at the time, we had more than a few Raiders trolls who came around to thank us for taking that albatross off their hands. There were more than a few long standing members of that board who were absolutly incensed at this acquisition and who predicted it as the first sign of the Patriots apocalypse. Needless to say, they were wrong (until 2009 anyway )

 

 

Welker on the other hand was more of an unknown than a problem child. His reputation coming from the Dolphins was as a top level return man and a solid WR. It would be like if the Patriots acquired Josh Cribbs right now. No one would say, Man i bet Cribbs goes off for 110 and 1200 next year. Nothing in Welker's 67 catch 680 yard 2006 season predicted what he would do the following year. If anything Welker was the prototypical Belichick free agent signing: A role player with upside who excelled at his role, and who then hit the upside lottery.

 

It wasnt like the Patriots had a lot in the cupboard at the WR position. 2006's top two WRs were Troy Brown and Reche Caldwell. In 2007 Caldwell caught 15 passes for the Redskins, and then was out of football. The 36 year old Brown suited up for 1 game for the 2007 Patriots and then retired. The top holdover WR from 2006 was Jabar Gaffney who caught 11 passes in 2006. If you remember that offseason the Patriots also signed Donte Stallworth and Kelley Washington. I remember that offseason as the year that the Patriots flung a whole lot of WR sh*t at a wall, and what occurred in 2007 was the most spectacular load of crap to ever stick to a painted vertical surface. Welker, Moss, Stallworth and Gaffney all far exceeded anyone expectations. Hell even Kelley Washingtoon led the team in special team tackles that year, if memory serves. But it wasnt like the Patriots just decided to break scoring records in 2007 and went out and signed a bunch of top level free agents, or added a top FA WR to an already strong WR corps. . They did what they always do, they acquired multiple guys who they felt were undervalued, and this time all the moons of Jupiter lined up.

 

Also, I think you severely discount the effect the competition committee led by Bill Polian had on the Patriots move away from a punch you in the mouth type of defensive team. The Patriots of the early 2000's earned their paychecks by hitting WR early and often. It was pretty obvious to that the NFL wanted offenses to be more wide open. Roly Polian had to get his PeyPey a ring somehow, right?

 

 

Also also, the Moss and Welker acquisitions took place around the time of the 20007 draft, the last weekend in April. Both players were actually traded for, and the draft picks used to acquire them were used by thei Dolphins and rthe Raiders in that 2007 draft.. The Jets game which was the catalyst for Spygate wasnt played until September. So while the actual videotaping may have been going on before the Welker/Moss acquisition , their acquisitions had nothing to do with Spygate. Unless you think Belichick acquired them because he knew he would get caught......holy sh*t thats devious.....

[kmbryant09 1]

SouthCarolina -

 

I should clarify my comments on the Welker/Moss acquisitions. I shouldn't have called them sexy moves. What I meant was that those acquisitions were very much "against the grain" of what the Patriots were about. They didn't put a precedence on an explosive offense, a deep threat WR, or outscoring the opposition. The focused on defense, toughness, and clutch plays. All I'm saying was those moves definitely steered the Patriots in a different direction. And their previous direction, the one I just mentioned, had won 3 of the last 5 SB's. So I was confused by the change.

 

As for the SpyGate & acquisitions - maybe I'm wrong. Like I said all along, I just connected the dots and brought it up for discussion. If the Pats acquired Moss/Welker long before they heard anything about SpyGate, then its a moot point. Although I will say - I wouldn't be quick to believe that the moment when Mangini ratted on SpyGate was the first that Belichick had heard about it. Bill probably was worried as soon as Mangini left for the Jets (date on that?). Maybe Mangini gave Bill a warning shot. Maybe the league notified the Patriots about an investigation prior to it being public knowledge.

 

I apologize for the speculative comments, I certainly don't stand firm in this position. I'm just throwing more ideas out there on a subject that is very, very speculative in nature.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

SouthCarolina -

 

I should clarify my comments on the Welker/Moss acquisitions. I shouldn't have called them sexy moves. What I meant was that those acquisitions were very much "against the grain" of what the Patriots were about. They didn't put a precedence on an explosive offense, a deep threat WR, or outscoring the opposition. The focused on defense, toughness, and clutch plays. All I'm saying was those moves definitely steered the Patriots in a different direction. And their previous direction, the one I just mentioned, had won 3 of the last 5 SB's. So I was confused by the change.

 

As for the SpyGate & acquisitions - maybe I'm wrong. Like I said all along, I just connected the dots and brought it up for discussion. If the Pats acquired Moss/Welker long before they heard anything about SpyGate, then its a moot point. Although I will say - I wouldn't be quick to believe that the moment when Mangini ratted on SpyGate was the first that Belichick had heard about it. Bill probably was worried as soon as Mangini left for the Jets (date on that?). Maybe Mangini gave Bill a warning shot. Maybe the league notified the Patriots about an investigation prior to it being public knowledge.

 

I apologize for the speculative comments, I certainly don't stand firm in this position. I'm just throwing more ideas out there on a subject that is very, very speculative in nature.

 

I think that a lot of people think that the Patriots have a formula or a system and they adhere to it. That is not the case. Belichick is a student of the game, sees it evolving and adjusts (sometimes ahead of others). For example:

- Pats team that he inherited had Drew Bledsoe. Pocket passer with a strong arm and conducive to vertical passing game, so the offense was built around him. Brady comes in when Bledsoe gets hurt and the "dink and dunk" is born.

- Pats from 2001-2004 are built on not making mistakes, a defense that is opportunistic and they win close games. That formula was what had been propelling teams like Bucs, Ravens and Giants to success while the more offensive focused teams were struggling

- In 2007 Pats have an opportunity to grow a vertical passing game to leverage a more mature Tom Brady to combat the loss of playmakers on defense. They take gamble on Randy Moss, who many thought was done for a 4th rounder. They take a chance by overpaying and trading for an undrafted, emerging slot player named Wes Welker. The league had shifted from a "rushing wins games" to a league where WR's can't be touched and passing becomes the norm.

- As Belichick sees that teams can shut down Moss and Welker, he also sees the emergence of the receiving TE. He drafts Hernandez and Gronkowski as an adjustment.

 

Every year people speculate what the Pats will do on draft day and how they might handle free agency. They try to look at what he has done in the past and think that they can figure it out. It doesn't work because he does not follow a formula like that. We are playing checkers and he is playing chess.

[Houston Texans 10]

I think that a lot of people think that the Patriots have a formula or a system and they adhere to it. That is not the case. Belichick is a student of the game, sees it evolving and adjusts (sometimes ahead of others). For example:

- Pats team that he inherited had Drew Bledsoe. Pocket passer with a strong arm and conducive to vertical passing game, so the offense was built around him. Brady comes in when Bledsoe gets hurt and the "dink and dunk" is born.

- Pats from 2001-2004 are built on not making mistakes, a defense that is opportunistic and they win close games. That formula was what had been propelling teams like Bucs, Ravens and Giants to success while the more offensive focused teams were struggling

- In 2007 Pats have an opportunity to grow a vertical passing game to leverage a more mature Tom Brady to combat the loss of playmakers on defense. They take gamble on Randy Moss, who many thought was done for a 4th rounder. They take a chance by overpaying and trading for an undrafted, emerging slot player named Wes Welker. The league had shifted from a "rushing wins games" to a league where WR's can't be touched and passing becomes the norm.

- As Belichick sees that teams can shut down Moss and Welker, he also sees the emergence of the receiving TE. He drafts Hernandez and Gronkowski as an adjustment.

 

Every year people speculate what the Pats will do on draft day and how they might handle free agency. They try to look at what he has done in the past and think that they can figure it out. It doesn't work because he does not follow a formula like that. We are playing checkers and he is playing chess.

This is one way to look at it, and with the benefit of hindsight, it appears to be the right way to look at it. However, for Welker, Moss, Hernandez, & Gronkowski, there is also Albert Haynesworth, Chad Johnson/Ochocinco, Brandon Lloyd, Laurence Maroney, Darius Butler, etc.

 

The fact is that since all of the "adjustments" you mentioned, the Pats have failed to win a SuperBowl. So, once BB started "playing chess," other teams were winning the championship of the world at checkers. Maybe if BB had stuck with checkers, they'd have another SB or two by now.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

This is one way to look at it, and with the benefit of hindsight, it appears to be the right way to look at it. However, for Welker, Moss, Hernandez, & Gronkowski, there is also Albert Haynesworth, Chad Johnson/Ochocinco, Brandon Lloyd, Laurence Maroney, Darius Butler, etc.

 

The fact is that since all of the "adjustments" you mentioned, the Pats have failed to win a SuperBowl. So, once BB started "playing chess," other teams were winning the championship of the world at checkers. Maybe if BB had stuck with checkers, they'd have another SB or two by now.

 

There is no question that he makes mistakes and they have not borne the fruit that he expected. He has skipped over a pass rusher for so long that it makes us bang our heads. Sometimes he is leading trends and sometimes it seems like he is years behind.

 

However, they have still been very competitive every year, losing 2 close SB's and being a contender year after year. It is hard to argue with that success, so we Patriots fans sometimes and see what happens.

[Houston Texans 10]

There is no question that he makes mistakes and they have not borne the fruit that he expected. He has skipped over a pass rusher for so long that it makes us bang our heads. Sometimes he is leading trends and sometimes it seems like he is years behind.

 

However, they have still been very competitive every year, losing 2 close SB's and being a contender year after year. It is hard to argue with that success, so we Patriots fans sometimes and see what happens.

The fact remains that before BB started "playing chess," the Pats won 3 SBs in 5 years. After he decided that the Patriots should get ahead of the game and switch to a pass-heavy offense, they haven't won a single one. If he was so smart, he would have stuck with the tried and true method that helped them win 3 SBs (that and cheating), rather than trying to be smarter than everyone else.

 

I'd rather have my team just barely make the playoffs & win the SB, than have them dominate in the regular season, and fail to win the SB.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

The fact remains that before BB started "playing chess," the Pats won 3 SBs in 5 years. After he decided that the Patriots should get ahead of the game and switch to a pass-heavy offense, they haven't won a single one. If he was so smart, he would have stuck with the tried and true method that helped them win 3 SBs (that and cheating), rather than trying to be smarter than everyone else.

 

I'd rather have my team just barely make the playoffs & win the SB, than have them dominate in the regular season, and fail to win the SB.

You miss the point that the players that won those SB's on defense got old and were no longer contributors. Bruschi, Law, Milloy, Harrison, etc. were all old and retiring by that.

 

As far as what you would like for your team to do, if you are a Texans fan, you must be used to disappointment.

[southcarolina 166]

 

I should clarify my comments on the Welker/Moss acquisitions. I shouldn't have called them sexy moves. What I meant was that those acquisitions were very much "against the grain" of what the Patriots were about. They didn't put a precedence on an explosive offense, a deep threat WR, or outscoring the opposition. The focused on defense, toughness, and clutch plays. All I'm saying was those moves definitely steered the Patriots in a different direction. And their previous direction, the one I just mentioned, had won 3 of the last 5 SB's. So I was confused by the change.

 

 

 

First thanks for being civil. These "discussions" almost always end up being shouting matches, which is why i rarely involve myself in them anymore.

 

Second as the Patriots changing direction or focus, well i just think that is what great teams do. Teams that get stagnant get figured out. After the 2006 season the Patriots had the corpse of Troy Brown ,Jabar Gaffney, Bam Childress and Kelvin Kight as signed WR for 2007. Reche Caldwell may have been under contreact as well and cut in training camp. My memory is a little fuzzy. But the point is, the Patriots needed WRs badly. They didnt need WRs so they could set all sorts of offensive records. They needed actual live NFL WRs so they could field a franchise. There was no conscious plan to go acquire a washed up malcontent, an undrafted 5'8" return man, a former 1st round draft pick journeyman WR coming off a career year of 70 catches and 900 yards and a former 3rd rounder who wished he he was a journeyman with a 70 catch 900 yard season to call his own, and turn them into what the 2007 Patriots offense became. They did what they always do...they acquired some guys to fill some holes who they perceived as undervalued - or at the very least not overvalued - and filled their holes.. And for one magical year, those holes got filled like no holes have ever been filled.

 

Another point, is that that same offseason, they also acquired Adalius Thomas. Now while he was an unmitigated bust for the Patriots, at the time of his acquisition, Thomas was seen a a stud defender, and arguably the top defensive free agent that off season. Thomas was the big athletic guy who would be the foundation of rebuilding the Patriots defense. So its not like the Patriots or Belichick just stopped worrying about the defense. It was just that that offseason he hit gold in his offensive acquisitions, and horsesh*t in his defensive ones. And once it became obvious that Moss was far from washed up, and what Welkers skill set was, well the offense was just there, and Belichick is too smart to not use something that falls into his lap like that. But i dont believe their offseason plan was to 1) build record setting offense and 2 ) ignore defense. Sometimes you just have to play the cards in your hand.

[murf74 461]

The fact remains that before BB started "playing chess," the Pats won 3 SBs in 5 years. After he decided that the Patriots should get ahead of the game and switch to a pass-heavy offense, they haven't won a single one. If he was so smart, he would have stuck with the tried and true method that helped them win 3 SBs (that and cheating), rather than trying to be smarter than everyone else.

 

I'd rather have my team just barely make the playoffs & win the SB, than have them dominate in the regular season, and fail to win the SB.

 

Regular season superstars gets you no awards. If you discount spygate would anyone really consider Pats to have been dominant since caught cheating.

 

They have been doing same as Colts used to do with Manning Except Manning actually won a superbowl without Shadow of cheating scandal