SportsCenter & OTL Bringing Back Spygate (live, 9AM)

[dcmissle]

Schefter may well be bulletproof; within the hour he basically called RG a liar on Mike and Mike.

They played a clip of RG saying emphatically that the NFL did not ask that the two guys be suspended. Schefter said that the clip was wrong -- he reported months ago that the League did ask for the suspension, based on impeccable sources and he stands behind the report.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Someone needs to tweet back at DVN the journalistic best practices on anonymous sources.  For example: http://ethics.npr.org/tag/anonymity/

 
Quote

While we recognize that some valuable information can only be obtained off the record, it is unfair to air a source’s opinion on a subject of coverage when the source’s identity and motives are shielded from scrutiny. 

 
Interesting, and good way to frame the challenge here.   I hear serious journalists say that sometimes you need anonymous sources because no one will go on the record; certainly, if you are thinking about mob cases or political corruption you can imagine this is so, and also that there is a strong public need for the information to come out.
 
What I observe here, and in Van Natta's response, is an extension of that approach to a topic that is almost indisputably not of a 'strong public need' and part of what is difficult for me to understand is how Van Natta would defend the need for this approach to this story given the guidelines.   I imagine the true answer is that they need the clicks and that is the driver of the approach---but whether he's honest enough to admit it would be interesting to push on

 

[JimBoSox9]

It's not journalism. It's entertainment masquerading as journalism. There's no accountability except $$. Saying he's reporting "the truth" and is "a journalist" is just him playing his part, because if he didn't the whole charade would come tumbling down.

 
I know enough about journalism to know that Ben Bradlee would have told DVN "You don't have it".
 
edit: derp

 

[tedseye]

 
I know enough about journalism to know that Bill Bradlee would have told DVN "You don't have it".

 

[tedseye]

Friendly correction: Ben Bradlee.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Friendly correction: Ben Bradlee.

 
 
I also don't have a high opinion of that ESPN piece.
 

 

[tedseye]

And he's even from NY/NJ .....

 

[Yossarian]

Apart from journalistic "standards," you can follow the norms of reporting and still just be inexcusably intellectually lazy.  As in, an obvious follow-up when you've heard all these playsheet theft allegations would be to start looking into security practices in NFL locker rooms and Gillette specifically.  Maybe you even find disturbing gaps in Gillette's procedures, and hey, then you really have a scoop -- with the added benefit that your initial anonymous source sounds a lot more credible.  Or maybe (and frankly, more likely), further research informs you--and your readers--that it would actually be really, really hard to steal a visiting team's playsheets out of the locker room -- and then the story becomes more about the paranoia the league has for the Patriots and the consequences that follow from that.  Either way, you're not just printing the anonymous and almost certainly biased rumor -- you're giving in some much-needed context.
 
But "much needed context" isn't what's driving ESPN these days.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

My favorite allegations are the ones about teams having locker rooms swept for listening devices, but none were found. That's news?

(I wonder if any opposing coaches wore tinfoil hats to block the Patriots from stealing their thoughts).

 

[Don Buddin's GS]

My questions about the alleged theft of playsheets are these: 
 
How many copies of thise are floating around? 
 
Does every player get a copy of the playsheet with the first twenty calls outlined on it? 
 
I would tend to think not.  HC, OC, QB--yeah; defense, offensive line, special teams--no.

 

[Average Reds]

if you're not growing, executives get fired.

 
This is simplistic claptrap.
 
First off, executives aren't the ones being let go at ESPN.  The on-air talent is.  Second, ESPN is still growing. 
 
The on-air talent is being let go in service to a bigger strategic goal, which is that with rare exceptions, ESPN wants to exert greater control over their content.  And one way of exerting this control is to reshape the talent pool so that it is aligned with the company's strategic objectives.  So they're shedding people who are talented but more trouble than they are worth, or who are just not worth that much in the first place.  (I'm looking at you Colin Cowherd.)
 
None of this means that ESPN isn't aware of the need to constrain costs.  But almost nothing they can do on the variable cost front is even a rounding error relative to the content costs they have committed to the NFL or MLB.  Given that reality, they are being protective (or at least doing what they perceive as being protective) of the assets they have paid dearly to control for the next decade or so.
 
No one disagrees with the idea that ESPN in acting in a fashion that undercuts basic journalistic ethics.  But before we make sweeping claims about what is driving them to act this way, we really should try to understand some of the basics of their business.

 

[Omar's Wacky Neighbor]

My favorite allegations are the ones about teams having locker rooms swept for listening devices, but none were found. That's news?

(I wonder if any opposing coaches wore tinfoil hats to block the Patriots from stealing their thoughts).

It'd be hysterical to pump in or hide some sort of small noise generator in the locker room, emitting a electronic hum just barely within the audible range.  It would drive teams crazy........

 

[Yossarian]

The more I think about this article, the more it pisses me off.
 
If it's supposed to be an expose of the Patriots cheating, then fine -- but you need a hell of a lot more proof than was offered, almost all of which were anonymous accusations from people who presumably have axes to grind.  If it's supposed to be a look at how the perception of the Patriots around the league drove the Deflategate process--which is sort of what it's pitched as--then the article really needs to be structured and written almost entirely differently.  There needs to be way more about owner pressure on Goodell during Deflategate and way less about the details of Spygate, and the Deflategate stuff can't be almost dropped in near the end.
 
This was deliberate -- it's been pitched to the world as an analysis of how Spygate drove Deflategate, so you have an excuse to rehash Spygate.  But whenever someone jumps up and yells "lack of proof" you can semi-credibly say "this wasn't about proving Spygate allegations -- it's about how perceptions of Spygate around the league affected the disposition of Deflategate."  But really, that gives you an out to simply hurl every Spygate and cheating allegation you've been able to gather up into one big article and fail to verify or even meaningfully support a single damn one.

 

[scott bankheadcase]

 
This is simplistic claptrap.
 
First off, executives aren't the ones being let go at ESPN.  The on-air talent is.  Second, ESPN is still growing. 
 
The on-air talent is being let go in service to a bigger strategic goal, which is that with rare exceptions, ESPN wants greater to exert control over their content.  And one way of exerting this control is to reshape the talent pool so that it is aligned with the company's strategic objectives.  So they're shedding people who are talented but more trouble than they are worth, or who are just not worth that much in the first place.  (I'm looking at you Colin Cowherd.)
 
None of this means that ESPN isn't aware of the need to constrain costs.  But almost nothing they can do on the variable cost front is even a rounding error relative to the content costs they have committed to the NFL or MLB.  Given that reality, they are being protective (or at least doing what they perceive as being protective) of the assets they have paid dearly to control for the next decade or so.
 
No one disagrees with the idea that ESPN in acting in a fashion that undercuts basic journalistic ethics.  But before we make sweeping claims about what is driving them to act this way, we really should try to understand some of the basics of their business.

 
There's another reasoning behind what they are doing -- though related to what you're saying. ESPN has a goal of having anyone they employee be interchangeable throughout the organization. They don't want to build on-air talent brands in general, thinking the sports are what's driving people to ESPN, not the talent. 

 

[Hildy]

Apart from journalistic "standards," you can follow the norms of reporting and still just be inexcusably intellectually lazy.  As in, an obvious follow-up when you've heard all these playsheet theft allegations would be to start looking into security practices in NFL locker rooms and Gillette specifically.  Maybe you even find disturbing gaps in Gillette's procedures, and hey, then you really have a scoop -- with the added benefit that your initial anonymous source sounds a lot more credible.  Or maybe (and frankly, more likely), further research informs you--and your readers--that it would actually be really, really hard to steal a visiting team's playsheets out of the locker room -- and then the story becomes more about the paranoia the league has for the Patriots and the consequences that follow from that.  Either way, you're not just printing the anonymous and almost certainly biased rumor -- you're giving in some much-needed context.
 
But "much needed context" isn't what's driving ESPN these days.

This is an excellent point. Sadly, I can't think of too many sports journalists anywhere who could do this, even outside ESPN. It would be terrific if a news/sports team could collaborate on this.

 

[AB in DC]

 
And those are actual news sources.  
 
The cable channel called the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network is not, nor is its website.
 
I agree it's bullshit and its annoying, but by continuing to cling to this belief that ESPN is reporting actual news, when it clearly is not, is only giving them more credit than they deserve in the first place.

 
That didn't used to be the case, though.  For several years, they spent a lot of effort scooping up as many talented journalists from other new sources that they could find -- that's how they got Schefter and Reiss in the first place, along with guys like Len Pasquarelli, Rob Neyer, and many others.

 

[OnWisc]

My questions about the alleged theft of playsheets are these: 
 
How many copies of thise are floating around? 
 
Does every player get a copy of the playsheet with the first twenty calls outlined on it? 
 
I would tend to think not.  HC, OC, QB--yeah; defense, offensive line, special teams--no.

Right. What is a playsheet? What specifically would be the advantage of having an opponents playsheet? What are the risks if the opponent deviated from whatever is indicated on a playsheet? What game was this supposedly for? On what part of the game would this have had an impact? What happened during that part of the game? How did you come to learn the playsheets were stolen? What subsequent steps were taken?

And then of course reaching out to other contacts associated with that team as well.

 

[troparra]

Right. What is a playsheet? What specifically would be the advantage of having an opponents playsheet? What are the risks if the opponent deviated from whatever is indicated on a playsheet? What game was this supposedly for? On what part of the game would this have had an impact? What happened during that part of the game? How did you come to learn the playsheets were stolen? What subsequent steps were taken?

And then of course reaching out to other contacts associated with that team as well.

 
Why script out 20 plays in the first place?  What if the first 3 get stuffed, do you just keep going with this potentially bad game plan?   Looking at the Super Bowl, the Seahawks ran 53 total plays, the Patriots 72.  So teams are scripting 25-40% of their offensive plays?   

 

[Devizier]

 
And those are actual news sources.  
 
The cable channel called the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network is not, nor is its website.
 
I agree it's bullshit and its annoying, but by continuing to cling to this belief that ESPN is reporting actual news, when it clearly is not, is only giving them more credit than they deserve in the first place.

 
I generally agree -- you really can't expect anything more from ESPN. But that's not to say that NY Times, NPR, and WashPo aren't caught with their pants down on major issues. That's part of the cost of doing business. In this case, though, ESPN is running editorial content as reportage, which pretty much eliminates them as a credible news entity.

 

[rodderick]

 
Why script out 20 plays in the first place?  What if the first 3 get stuffed, do you just keep going with this potentially bad game plan?   Looking at the Super Bowl, the Seahawks ran 53 total plays, the Patriots 72.  So teams are scripting 25-40% of their offensive plays?   

Didn't Bill Walsh come up with that? If I recall correctly the purpose of scripting was giving you the advantage of being able to practice 15-20 plays you knew you'd run on Sunday, so execution would be razor sharp to start the game. Of course, if you're playing against a particulary innovative gameplanning team, it could very well backfire.

 

[Bleedred]

By the way, mission accomplished Roger Goodell.  Nobody is talking about the shellacking he took in federal court last week.

 

[Gambler7]

 
Why script out 20 plays in the first place?  What if the first 3 get stuffed, do you just keep going with this potentially bad game plan?   Looking at the Super Bowl, the Seahawks ran 53 total plays, the Patriots 72.  So teams are scripting 25-40% of their offensive plays?   

Zolak discussed this yesterday. He said they used to attempt to script out 10+ plays or so but they'd get through two of three and everything would change based on the defense, how the game was going, etc. 

 

[wiffleballhero]

My favorite allegations are the ones about teams having locker rooms swept for listening devices, but none were found. That's news?

(I wonder if any opposing coaches wore tinfoil hats to block the Patriots from stealing their thoughts).

This, too, manifests the entire rhetorical structure of the article: make an allegation and then structurally reinscribe the lack of evidence as implicit validation for the allegation (i.e. not only were the Patriots cheating but they were sooooo good at it that they covered their tracks). This is both a total scoundrel move on the part of the writer and a kind of cliche of paranoid reasoning.

 

[9percenthurdle]

 
This is simplistic claptrap.
 
First off, executives aren't the ones being let go at ESPN.  The on-air talent is.  Second, ESPN is still growing. 
 
The on-air talent is being let go in service to a bigger strategic goal, which is that with rare exceptions, ESPN wants greater to exert control over their content.  And one way of exerting this control is to reshape the talent pool so that it is aligned with the company's strategic objectives.  So they're shedding people who are talented but more trouble than they are worth, or who are just not worth that much in the first place.  (I'm looking at you Colin Cowherd.)
 
None of this means that ESPN isn't aware of the need to constrain costs.  But almost nothing they can do on the variable cost front is even a rounding error relative to the content costs they have committed to the NFL or MLB.  Given that reality, they are being protective (or at least doing what they perceive as being protective) of the assets they have paid dearly to control for the next decade or so.
 
No one disagrees with the idea that ESPN in acting in a fashion that undercuts basic journalistic ethics.  But before we make sweeping claims about what is driving them to act this way, we really should try to understand some of the basics of their business.

 
I think it is important how you quantify "growth".  The ESPN subscriber base has actually fallen about 2% this year and with all the concerns around Millennials embracing cord cutting the investment community is very concerned.   For example, the most recent Disney earnings transcript mentions "ESPN" 54 times.  The previous two transcripts have "ESPN" 18 and 34 times.  Yes ESPN is still a money printing behemoth, but changing technology and how people consume content in the future is a major issue and the investment community and therefore Disney management has recently taken notice in a big way.    
 
Do subscriber growth concerns factor into the recent Patriots smear campaign?  Probably not, but I don't think posters are misguided in at least considering how it might.  It wouldn't surprise me if ESPN's attempts to focus outside of television lend itself to more of these ridiculous click bait headlines and stories.

 

[OnWisc]

 
Why script out 20 plays in the first place?  What if the first 3 get stuffed, do you just keep going with this potentially bad game plan?   Looking at the Super Bowl, the Seahawks ran 53 total plays, the Patriots 72.  So teams are scripting 25-40% of their offensive plays?   

I agree and have always wondered about a lot of this (maybe "scripted plays" could make it into some sort of glossary?). But I was just getting to fundamental questions that I would ask myself about a scenario where Belichick stole playsheets and what the implications of that were. Things it seems a journalist might follow-up with but that an infotainalist would never bother asking.

 

[Jaylach]

I'm going to rant about something that's not useful, but I just feel the need to say it -- this is the current state of journalism, and ESPN has proven yet again that it works. Come up with a controversy, sensationalize it, and then throw it out there to the masses. Those who are on Good Side will click on it, read it multiple times, link to it, and talk about it. But, more important, those who are on Bad Side are going to click on it, read it multiple times, link to it, talk about it, AND keep stirring the pot with their defense. 
 
And now that it's written, other journalists and bloggers are going to cite it. They'll spread their articles on social media, which will get people clicking on their shit. And once you're on their shit article, you're going to click onto the original source (ESPN). All generating even more clicks (i.e: ad revenue) for ESPN. 
 
You all likely watched their "Spygate v2" episode. Y'all clicked on their article. Some of you probably commented on it, shared it on twitter and facebook, etc. You guys here, and on reddit, and on twitter, and everywhere else are just proof that this model of "journalism" works. I hate it. 
 
End rant. 

 

[garzooma]

Or maybe (and frankly, more likely), further research informs you--and your readers--that it would actually be really, really hard to steal a visiting team's playsheets out of the locker room

 
Not to mention doing so in a way that doesn't leave any trace to be found by an NFL investigation, followed by a Wells investigation, that scoured phone and email records.

 

[Punchado]

So because the Patriots were caught breaking the rules once, any of their achievements are tainted.
 
But when two large portions of a report about their alleged cheating are proven to be completely inaccurate it does not have any impact on the credibility of the report as a whole.
 
I just wanted to be clear about how this all works.  

 

[CoffeeNerdness]

Looking at google images of "playsheet" mainly shows the typical huge sheets that are nicely formatted and laminated.  This one of Sean Payton is interesting in that he seems to be holding a supplemental sheet on top of the laminated one.  Given where the play clock is this could be an example of one of the scripted plays sheets.  Why you'd leave a stack of these around is a whole other question.
 

 

[Section15Box113]

Zolak discussed this yesterday. He said they used to attempt to script out 10+ plays or so but they'd get through two of three and everything would change based on the defense, how the game was going, etc. 

This would be an interesting topic for Dale and Holley to raise with Belichick.

First question could relate to the thinking behind scripting plays (which he might be inclined to address, as it provides an opportunity to teach others about the game, specifically where preparation meets in-game coaching strategy).

Immediate followup questions: How often do you script plays for the start of the game? How many do you draw up, does it vary by opponent, and when do you deviate from plan, if at all?

Then, look for the nugget: Does the whole team know the scripted plays? Are there playsheets drawn up? Does the whole offense get a sheet with the first __ plays or is it just the HC, OC, and starting QB?

If time permits, look for the chuckle: what would you do if Tom Brady left his playsheet lying around in front of his locker when the team took the field?

You won't get an answer to the last one, but you might to the others.

 

[lexrageorge]

I seem to recall the idea of scripted plays being discussed a few times on radio/TV shows, etc.  I don't have any specific links, but I've always been of the understanding that for each week, the team has a list of about 75-100 or so plays that it keeps in the "library" for that particular game.  And that the first one or two offensive drives are often scripted.  Scripted means that there's a general idea of which plays will be run in those first series and in which order.  So to account for 2 drives I can see it being 15 or 20 plays.
 
That doesn't mean that all 15 or 20 will be run.  Situational factors such as a quick turnover by either side, 3-and-outs on the first 3 drives, etc. will impact the plays that actually get called. 
 
If teams are leaving these playsheets lying around unattended in opposing team's stadiums, that speaks volumes as to how important they really are. 

 

[Don Buddin's GS]

I remember reading about Walsh scripting out 20 plays in case the headsets went out.  Sure enuf, it happened during a game and his team was fine, because they had the plays already scripted on a hard copy.

 

[dynomite]

I seem to recall the idea of scripted plays being discussed a few times on radio/TV shows, etc.  I don't have any specific links, but I've always been of the understanding that for each week, the team has a list of about 75-100 or so plays that it keeps in the "library" for that particular game.  And that the first one or two offensive drives are often scripted.  Scripted means that there's a general idea of which plays will be run in those first series and in which order.  So to account for 2 drives I can see it being 15 or 20 plays.
 
That doesn't mean that all 15 or 20 will be run.  Situational factors such as a quick turnover by either side, 3-and-outs on the first 3 drives, etc. will impact the plays that actually get called. 
 
If teams are leaving these playsheets lying around unattended in opposing team's stadiums, that speaks volumes as to how important they really are. 

 
I believe this is generally correct.  You know how teams often have what's called a "walkthrough"?  This is what they're talking about.
 
There's good footage of this in the 2004 America's Game from the night before the AFCCG in Pittsburgh at the hotel.  The players (in sweats and sneakers) literally walk through the first few plays at half speed in the hotel ballroom, including the play to Branch that led to a TD in the game.

 

[riboflav]

I remember reading about Walsh scripting out 20 plays in case the headsets went out.  Sure enuf, it happened during a game and his team was fine, because they had the plays already scripted on a hard copy.

 
Guess who the opposing DC was.
 
EDIT: But, really the accusation has always been that Walsh sabotaged the headsets which is why he had written/scripted the plays.

 

[Omar's Wacky Neighbor]

I seem to recall the idea of scripted plays being discussed a few times on radio/TV shows, etc.  I don't have any specific links, but I've always been of the understanding that for each week, the team has a list of about 75-100 or so plays that it keeps in the "library" for that particular game.  And that the first one or two offensive drives are often scripted.  Scripted means that there's a general idea of which plays will be run in those first series and in which order.  So to account for 2 drives I can see it being 15 or 20 plays.
 
That doesn't mean that all 15 or 20 will be run.  Situational factors such as a quick turnover by either side, 3-and-outs on the first 3 drives, etc. will impact the plays that actually get called. 
 
If teams are leaving these playsheets lying around unattended in opposing team's stadiums, that speaks volumes as to how important they really are. 

And if you had reason to suspect that your opponent was willing to beg, borrow, or steal to get your playsheets, wouldnt you leave a few false playsheets around, just to F with them and keep them on their toes.  Or would a disinformation campaign go against the "integrity of the game"?

 

[geoduck no quahog]

I'm going to rant about something that's not useful, but I just feel the need to say it -- this is the current state of journalism, and ESPN has proven yet again that it works. Come up with a controversy, sensationalize it, and then throw it out there to the masses. Those who are on Good Side will click on it, read it multiple times, link to it, and talk about it. But, more important, those who are on Bad Side are going to click on it, read it multiple times, link to it, talk about it, AND keep stirring the pot with their defense. 
 
And now that it's written, other journalists and bloggers are going to cite it. They'll spread their articles on social media, which will get people clicking on their shit. And once you're on their shit article, you're going to click onto the original source (ESPN). All generating even more clicks (i.e: ad revenue) for ESPN. 
 
You all likely watched their "Spygate v2" episode. Y'all clicked on their article. Some of you probably commented on it, shared it on twitter and facebook, etc. You guys here, and on reddit, and on twitter, and everywhere else are just proof that this model of "journalism" works. I hate it. 
 
End rant. 

 
Not to get all V&N over this, but I predict some day in the not too distant future people will look back at the model that rewarded internet sites with advertising based on "clicks" as something akin to 1950's television. I agree with you 100% that the current revenue system perverts what is offered. Folks who normally wouldn't buy the Sun, the Mirror (or the Post) or even ESPN Magazine will gladly hit a cost-free link to look at some sensationalist or exposed breast posting. This type of entertainment broadcasting won't change until internet sites become almost wholly subscription-based (analogy to pay/premium-TV).
 
The spread of merchandising vehicles like ESPN (or CNN) masquerading as journalistic outlets ironically leads to people having less and less information. At least Daily News readers accept that fact.

 

[AB in DC]

 
Not to get all V&N over this, but I predict some day in the not too distant future people will look back at the model that rewarded internet sites with advertising based on "clicks" as something akin to 1950's television. I agree with you 100% that the current revenue system perverts what is offered. Folks who normally wouldn't buy the Sun, the Mirror (or the Post) or even ESPN Magazine will gladly hit a cost-free link to look at some sensationalist or exposed breast posting. This type of entertainment broadcasting won't change until internet sites become almost wholly subscription-based (analogy to pay/premium-TV).
 
The spread of merchandising vehicles like ESPN (or CNN) masquerading as journalistic outlets ironically leads to people having less and less information. At least Daily News readers accept that fact.

 
Completely agree.  My only real hope is that people get so sick of clickbait-y stuff in the next few years that these business models will start to implode.

 

[soxhop411]

mike freeman ‏@mikefreemanNFL  3m3 minutes ago
NFL head coach to me today: "If you're dumb enough to leave plays unguarded in the locker room, you deserve to have them stolen."

 

[brandonchristensen]

This is what I imagine when I hear they're stealing plays
 

 

[dcdrew10]

 
Completely agree.  My only real hope is that people get so sick of clickbait-y stuff in the next few years that these business models will start to implode.

You all are underestimating how stupid we have become. The Internet is an amazing thing but the increase in the availability of information has only made it easier to forget more complex information and humans more likely to fall victim to confirmation bias. It will probably get worse.

 

[lexrageorge]

Speaking of stupid, we always have:
 
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/ron_borges/2015/09/borges_how_bill_belichick_became_a_villain_to_the_nfl
 
First he quotes the always "classy" Don Shula.  Then he tops it off by quoting Jim McMahon claiming Belichick lied to him.  Seriously, you cannot make this stuff up.

 

[pappymojo]

An anonymous source who was an assistant coach on a team that lost numerous times to the Patriots claims the Patriots hired interns to fart in their locker-room before games. "It always stunk in that locker room. I'm convinced that's why we lost."

 

[Jaylach]

 
Not to get all V&N over this, but I predict some day in the not too distant future people will look back at the model that rewarded internet sites with advertising based on "clicks" as something akin to 1950's television. I agree with you 100% that the current revenue system perverts what is offered. Folks who normally wouldn't buy the Sun, the Mirror (or the Post) or even ESPN Magazine will gladly hit a cost-free link to look at some sensationalist or exposed breast posting. This type of entertainment broadcasting won't change until internet sites become almost wholly subscription-based (analogy to pay/premium-TV).
 
The spread of merchandising vehicles like ESPN (or CNN) masquerading as journalistic outlets ironically leads to people having less and less information. At least Daily News readers accept that fact.

 
I hesitated posting what I did for nearly a day, precisely to avoid V&N'ing up this place, lol. And you said what I wanted to say, just far more eloquently. The current model works, but it sucks. Not just clicks, but the way the clicks are generated (sensationalism and "entertainment journalism"). If it weren't financially beneficial for ESPN to be the mouth piece of the NFL in cases like this, they wouldn't. It just makes tons of sense for them to do the NFL's bidding here - it's hot to hate on the Patriots, and they know how "rabid" (totally not he right word, I know) New England fans are. A win/win for them. 

 

[Devizier]

And, with that win tonight, I am back to not giving a shit about this nonsense.

 

[CaptainLaddie]

Tomlin all but said that the Patriots always fuck with the communications.  And the media kept pushing him, even when he said he wouldn't talk anymore about it.  And then he did.

 

[djbayko]

This is what I imagine when I hear they're stealing plays
 

 

[cshea]

Awesome. Keep it coming.

 

[djbayko]

Tomlin all but said that the Patriots always fuck with the communications.  And the media kept pushing him, even when he said he wouldn't talk anymore about it.  And then he did.

Great coaches lead by example...and make excuses for their players.

Anyone have a link to vid of this?

 

[CaptainLaddie]

Great coaches lead by example...and make excuses for their players.

Anyone have a link to vid of this?

No but here's PFT.
 
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/11/tomlin-angry-with-communications-problems-at-gillette-stadium/

 

[Three10toLeft]

Wow. Tomlin is really trying to stir some shit up.