Tony Dungy: We Stole Signals, Everyone Steals Signals

SamCassellsStones

New Member
Feb 8, 2017
130
"Have any other former players or coaches actually come out to say they used game film to steal signals?"

Jimmy Johnson has publically admitted so in the past (http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sports/patriots/?p=2202&srvc=home&position=recent)

Q: Did you ever steal signals?

JJ: Oh in a heartbeat, yeah. Yes I did.

Q: Via video, Jimmy? Or no?

JJ: Oh yeah, I did it with video and so did a lot of other teams in the league. Just to make sure that you could study it and take your time, because you’re going to play the other team the second time around. But a lot of coaches did it, this was commonplace.

Q: But did you do it by taping the signal caller?

JJ: Yeah.

Q: Oh you did.

JJ: That’s what I’m saying. I was saying one of Marty Schottenheimer’s scouts, Mark Hatley, who has passed away now, Mark told me that’s how they did it, and Howard Mudd their offensive line coach with Kansas City, who now coaches for Tony Dungy, he was the best in the entire league at stealing signals.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
I can accept the premise of what he's suggesting. I videotape down-and-distance before every play; then I record the signals or personnel grouping or whatever coming onto the field. At halftime, my coach says, "That one play where they ran such-and-such stunt-- 3rd and 1 at 10:25-- what were the signals then?" I rewind through a whole bunch of footage until I see scoreboard shot reading "3rd and 1 / 10:25". It's not very efficient, and probably not very useful, but I get the mechanics of how it would work.
A play run after seven minutes of game clock elapsed won't be seven minutes into a videotape, and searching a physical tape is a much slower process than firing through digital video. And given the severe time limitations of halftime, the answer probably is as simple as Belichick's answer, that they weren't using the footage in game. (And as everyone here agreed at the time it was idiotic to use the bad wording of the memo as an excuse to tape from the sidelines.)
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
We wonder why no one else can let this stuff go.

It's because we can't let this stuff go.
 

troparra

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2007
1,921
Michigan
They were discussing the Dungy/Deion thing on Mike & Mike. They were claiming that if Deion had any evidence, he should present it rather than float vague accusations against one of the most respected and revered coaches in the history of the league.
Golic stated that they used to steal signals all the time, every team does it, and it's not cheating. In fact, both Mikes agreed that they shouldn't refer to it as "stealing" signs, because stealing suggests there's something bad about it.

Then, Golic added that if you were to tape signals then evaluate them over several weeks to use in future games, that is illegal, and therefore cheating.

I'm always amazed that there are people whose job it is to offer opinions of some topic but who have no factual knowledge of that topic. How are these idiots allowed to get away with not knowing basic facts?

edit: clarity
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,775
Hartford, CT
The idea that the Pats got off lightly in Spygate is fucking laughable.

The owners leading the anti-Patriots cabal during Deflategate had only one goal in mind: take out their bitterness, envy and paranoia on the model franchise of the past 15 years. Mind you, I have no doubt some of them would not have been satisfied by anything less than a lifetime suspension for BB, a forfeiture of 15 draft picks, salary cap penalties and a postseason ban for the heinous crime of surreptitiously videotaping coaches from unauthorized locations based on a strained interpretation of a league memo ordering the many teams doing just that to cut the shit. But this view deserves about as much consideration as it takes time to state it.

The Patriots operate under a different code of conduct than any other team. Might as well just acknowledge it and laugh at the petulance and stupidity of these morons. The best we can say for them is that some are pandering blowhards cashing in on widespread resentment of the Pats and the casual relationship with facts that many enjoy on this issue.

In short, lolboohoo
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,775
Hartford, CT
They were discussing the Dungy/Deion thing on Mike & Mike. They were claiming that if Deion had any evidence, he should present it rather than float vague accusations against one of the most respected and revered coaches in the history of the league.
Golic stated that they used to steal signals all the time, every team does it, and it's not cheating. In fact, both Mikes agreed that they shouldn't refer to it as "stealing" signs, because stealing suggests there's something bad about it.

Then, Golic added that if you were to tape signals then evaluate them over several weeks to use in future games, that is illegal, and therefore cheating.

I'm always amazed that there are people whose job it is to offer opinions of some topic but who have no factual knowledge of that topic. How are these idiots allowed to get away with not knowing basic facts?

edit: clarity
Imagine a caller trying to explain to Mike Golic the interplay between ethics and morality, or the notion that not all rules are created equal.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
The idea that the Pats got off lightly in Spygate is fucking laughable.
If the Pats went 8-8 in 2007 instead of 16-0, and missed the playoffs as they did in 2008, then the whole "they got of lightly" meme would have died.

It must also be noted that the Senator from Comcast, Matt Walsh, and John Tomase all did what they could to keep that meme alive a lot longer than it should have ever been allowed to live.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Perversely, Spygate became a much bigger deal than it should have almost precisely because Goodell slammed the Patriots for it. The harsh penalty confirmed all the mis-informed, mis-interpreted versions of what actually happened. And once those were confirmed ("Oh my GOD! A team steals signals! With a video camera! And then uses it in the same game! That's...AWFUL!"), it suddenly appeared that the punishment was, if anything, too light. Of course, Goodell never came out to really explain anything, he just let it sit there and figured "Eh, fuck 'em."

And for 7 years or so, that kettle simmered. And those "facts" became ingrained in the collective wisdom.

And then when the fucking Colts saw an opportunity to turn the heat up to a boil again, they did. And because the collective wisdom was that Goodell had "gone light" on the Patriots in 2007, he overreacted again and slammed the Patriots even worse for an even stupider reason.

The problem is that the kettle is back to a simmer, but it's not cold yet. Any team wanting to stoke that fire can do so, as we saw last year with the "bugs in the locker room" and this year with the Steelers' "Something always goes wrong with the headsets" shit.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
We wonder why no one else can let this stuff go.

It's because we can't let this stuff go.
No, it's just the opposite. At least for me.

I can't let it go, because it constantly gets brought up by other fans and media members who want to discredit my favorite team's accomplishments. Frankly, it pisses me off. I just had a conversation this past Saturday with a good friend who's a Steelers fan and he said he just couldn't root for the Pats on Sunday "Because of all the cheating". I mean...I never mentioned any of it, but he brought it up all so casually and yet seriously. I can't let it go because THEY can't let it go.

If they'd all drop it, I'd be more than happy to let this all go bye bye. But they NEVER drop it, and since they never do, I feel some need to stand up for my team.

Perversely, Spygate became a much bigger deal than it should have almost precisely because Goodell slammed the Patriots for it. The harsh penalty confirmed all the mis-informed, mis-interpreted versions of what actually happened. And once those were confirmed ("Oh my GOD! A team steals signals! With a video camera! And then uses it in the same game! That's...AWFUL!"), it suddenly appeared that the punishment was, if anything, too light.
I think this is true. If they hit the Pats with a $100k fine (similar to what they gave Denver for videotaping the 49ers' practice before their 2010 London game), then nobody thinks this is a big deal. But they levied what was at the time the biggest penalty in NFL history, thus giving the impression that this was basically the worst "crime" anyone ever committed in the history of the league. (Cue the "Worst cheaters ever!!!!" meme)
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
The reason why folks don't let Spygate go is the amount of misinformation about it that's out there, and the fact that lazy journalists, even the local ones, spin the misinformation every so often in a lame attempt to generate clicks. It was just 18 months ago that ESPN made a big deal of the fact that the Pats served warm Gatorade while they were taping signals, and that the Pats may have been, OMG, actually videotaping signals even before The Sheriff arrived.
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
8,015
0-3 to 4-3
A play run after seven minutes of game clock elapsed won't be seven minutes into a videotape, and searching a physical tape is a much slower process than firing through digital video. And given the severe time limitations of halftime, the answer probably is as simple as Belichick's answer, that they weren't using the footage in game. (And as everyone here agreed at the time it was idiotic to use the bad wording of the memo as an excuse to tape from the sidelines.)
I'm sorry you're not able to grasp the mechanics of this. Nobody has said that the tape time would mimic the game time. And if you seriously believe there were not digital-capable handheld recorders in 2007 then I don't know what to tell you. Finding a particular spot in what would amount to MAYBE 10 minutes of recorded video is not a challenge for anyone with a brain.

I can accept the premise of what he's suggesting. I videotape down-and-distance before every play; then I record the signals or personnel grouping or whatever coming onto the field. At halftime, my coach says, "That one play where they ran such-and-such stunt-- 3rd and 1 at 10:25-- what were the signals then?" I rewind through a whole bunch of footage until I see scoreboard shot reading "3rd and 1 / 10:25". It's not very efficient, and probably not very useful, but I get the mechanics of how it would work.

My question is still: how does taping from an unauthorized location aid this? Can you see the signals better? Get some additional info? If the answer is, 'It doesn't help', then teams could ostensibly still be breaking down signs at halftime based on their shot-in-authorized-location 'legal stealing' footage, no?

And, yes, I realize I should have had this conversation ten years ago.
First off, thank you for having a functional brain. I am glad you are able to follow the (very slowly) bouncing ball.

Your question is a good one and there is no way for me to answer it. If the 'legal recording area' is really the press box (which I actually doubt, as I've been in a press box for around 300 NFL games and have never once seen anyone with a videocamera of any sort), then all I can say is that perhaps the rationale for recording from a sideline is A) ability to communicate directly with the recorder (as in, find me that play call at 10:45 of the 1st quarter), and B) the little bit of time saved by coming to locker room straight off the field rather than having to come down from the press box area. Halftime is only 12 minutes long so the window is tight. So why not have someone in the stands do exactly the same thing as they were doing on the sidelines, then hand over the camera to whoever at halftime so that they could bring it into the lockerroom? No idea...

There's a bunch of speculation all over that and everything else I've said. I get that. All I'm saying is that you can very easily marry the playcall to the play and it's entirely feasible to then pick out a play or a few plays to learn what they're doing in real-time. I'll go a step further and say you can marry that info to the overhead shots taken by the overhead camera to get even more clarity on what's going on. There is a camera in the end zone and the 50 yard line way up top of the stadium, and there's a camera operator on the sideline that snaps an overhead shot pre-snap and 1 second after the snap Those shots are (or were) run over to a designated coach at the conclusion of a series. That's how it was back in the mid 2000's - I suspect that now it's via tablet. And this is great for seeing stunts and blitzes pretty clearly, and if you have the defensive signals lined up with this and can adjust in real-time, well then you may be on to something.

Best I can tell Tony Dungy has not said they stole signals with a recording device that they then had access to during the game. In fact his whole point is that they (and everyone else) stole signals, but NOT with a recording device that they had access to during the game. Many of you want to ignore that distinction, but to do that ignores the critical component of the rule, the memo, and the issue at hand.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,777
Rotten Apple
The reason why folks don't let Spygate go is the amount of misinformation about it that's out there, and the fact that lazy journalists, even the local ones, spin the misinformation every so often in a lame attempt to generate clicks. It was just 18 months ago that ESPN made a big deal of the fact that the Pats served warm Gatorade while they were taping signals, and that the Pats may have been, OMG, actually videotaping signals even before The Sheriff arrived.
Absolutely. And it's not like the NFL or The Sheriff lifted a finger to correct the BS that was out there. In fact, they were the leakers for a lot of it.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,592
Here
Many of you want to ignore that distinction, but to do that ignores the critical component of the rule, the memo, and the issue at hand.
There is no arguing the Pats broke the rule as clearly defined in 2007. We can agree to disagree about the advantages to taping versus having 5 interns watch and take notes relative to in-game signals, but the bigger issue for me has always been the punishment and, more apropos here, the high ground pricks like Dungy have taken over the years (Dungy once compared this to Bonds). It's gotten so pervasive that, ten years later, we hear about how Deflategate was a makeup for how the Pats were "underpunished for Spygate," which to me is asinine. The punishment for ignoring a memo (which was disseminated because the rule was unclear) was far bigger than what the Broncos got for cheating 25% of the freaking salary cap.

To me, Spygate is comparable to the walkie talkie violation this year. Both of those arw a step or two below years of pumping in fake crowd noise. Compare punishments. We can talk about memo vs. no memo, but I think that loses some luster based on the communucations/crowd noise rules being clear enough that no memo was needed.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
...
Best I can tell Tony Dungy has not said they stole signals with a recording device that they then had access to during the game. In fact his whole point is that they (and everyone else) stole signals, but NOT with a recording device that they had access to during the game. Many of you want to ignore that distinction, but to do that ignores the critical component of the rule, the memo, and the issue at hand.
My issue with your insinuation is that there's never been a shred of evidence that the videotape was actually used during the game. Mangini would likely had known if that had been the case, and at the time would have had no issue with raising that to the league during the original investigation. Decade later, and still noone has come forward to make that claim. There has to be enough former Patriot employees around that would have known that they could have pulled a Matt Walsh if they so desired.

If your point is that it's feasible for the recording to be used at halftime, and that is why the NFL prohibits taping from the sidelines, then that's certainly a fair point.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,402
The reason why folks don't let Spygate go is the amount of misinformation about it that's out there, and the fact that lazy journalists, even the local ones, spin the misinformation every so often in a lame attempt to generate clicks. It was just 18 months ago that ESPN made a big deal of the fact that the Pats served warm Gatorade while they were taping signals, and that the Pats may have been, OMG, actually videotaping signals even before The Sheriff arrived.
Ordway was on WEEI earlier this week defending the Pats, yet messing up the facts. Everything has gotten all muddled up.

BaseballJones has it exactly right. If you unleash the most severe penalty in NFL history, how can the general public not conclude this was the worst violation of the rules by a team ever?
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,751
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
My issue with your insinuation is that there's never been a shred of evidence that the videotape was actually used during the game. Mangini would likely had known if that had been the case, and at the time would have had no issue with raising that to the league during the original investigation. Decade later, and still noone has come forward to make that claim. There has to be enough former Patriot employees around that would have known that they could have pulled a Matt Walsh if they so desired.

If your point is that it's feasible for the recording to be used at halftime, and that is why the NFL prohibits taping from the sidelines, then that's certainly a fair point.
If you want to use the knowledge of signals in game, it's far more practical to have some scouting assistants stealing them by eye and writing them on a notepad, than to put them on tape. Howard Mudd wore a fucking headset while he was out there stealing signs, he could pretty much relay that information to coaches in real time, something that would be impossible in the way the Pats were doing it.

Hey, here's an article from 1987 about Mudd stealing signs with a headset on while with the Browns: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-12-11/sports/8704020019_1_signals-defensive-coordinator-george-seifert-49ers-coach-bill-walsh.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Yes. Yes I have, after they have brought it up in conversation when we start talking about football and team affiliations.

Typically the casual fans, but I have changed several minds on spygate and deflagegate. Corrected the Rams walkthrough, and even made them realize what it was really about versus what they sort of remembered.

"what really?" "you're kidding" "I thought it was much worse than that"... etc...
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Try to have a conversation with a fan of another team and see how long it is before they bring up Spygate, which happened 10 years ago. But sure, we are the ones who can't let go.
Ignore it.

I know it's hard, because I used to be the same way, but I don't need validation from Steeler fans or Jets fans or whatever.

Sports exists, for me, to grant ME entertainment and satisfaction. Knowing that the guy at the grocery store that made a comment about my Patriots hat is convinced they cheated doesn't change that.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
Try to have a conversation with a fan of another team and see how long it is before they bring up Spygate, which happened 10 years ago. But sure, we are the ones who can't let go.
Mentioned this in the Nations Tears thread but I was flying from Raleigh to Atlanta yesterday, and overhead a Chiefs fan in line saying they hate the Pats and Brady because they are cheaters and spygate. This is a Chiefs fan.
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
8,015
0-3 to 4-3
My issue with your insinuation is that there's never been a shred of evidence that the videotape was actually used during the game. Mangini would likely had known if that had been the case, and at the time would have had no issue with raising that to the league during the original investigation. Decade later, and still noone has come forward to make that claim. There has to be enough former Patriot employees around that would have known that they could have pulled a Matt Walsh if they so desired.

If your point is that it's feasible for the recording to be used at halftime, and that is why the NFL prohibits taping from the sidelines, then that's certainly a fair point.
I would not really expect there to be some statement from the league or Mangini, as it's in everyone's best interest to downplay all of it. Even Mangini, because he'd be guilty by association of his time during the Pats. I won't go as far as to completely disagree with you about Mangini having no problem being specific and loud & proud about it, but I can see how he'd take a half measure. Again, we are all left to speculate and wonder.

But you're very right in that my point really is just that it's feasible, and that's why the rule was there.

The only thing I'd add, and the last point I'll make, is that Bill Belichick is absolutely the greatest coach of all time and likely one of the smartest football minds of all time. He had this done, and if he he was having this done, there had to be a pretty good reason for it. I do not think Belichick does careless things. In retrospect I am sure he'd take it back, but just because he misjudged Mangini's willingness to be a snake does not mean there was no benefit to be had by recording these signals as he was instead of as he was allowed to do. I don't think Bill was just an idiot that didn't realize he could have done this in way X, Y or Z.
 

allstonite

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 27, 2010
2,472
I also mentioned this in one of the pre-Super Bowl threads but Cris Carter was on Katie Nolan last week and thought SpyGate was the Patriots got caught filming the Rams walkthrough and acted as though it was an 100% true fact. His job since he retired has literally been to cover the NFL.

It is probably futile but I will spend the rest of my days defending Tom Brady's honor and legacy against morons. It's the least I can do
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
8,015
0-3 to 4-3
There is no arguing the Pats broke the rule as clearly defined in 2007. We can agree to disagree about the advantages to taping versus having 5 interns watch and take notes relative to in-game signals, but the bigger issue for me has always been the punishment and, more apropos here, the high ground pricks like Dungy have taken over the years (Dungy once compared this to Bonds). It's gotten so pervasive that, ten years later, we hear about how Deflategate was a makeup for how the Pats were "underpunished for Spygate," which to me is asinine. The punishment for ignoring a memo (which was disseminated because the rule was unclear) was far bigger than what the Broncos got for cheating 25% of the freaking salary cap.

To me, Spygate is comparable to the walkie talkie violation this year. Both of those arw a step or two below years of pumping in fake crowd noise. Compare punishments. We can talk about memo vs. no memo, but I think that loses some luster based on the communucations/crowd noise rules being clear enough that no memo was needed.
And, I don't disagree with this either. The Commish is an ass and he mishandled this just as he's mishandled everything. Patriots fans have every right to be up in arms about Spygate, the stupid unsubstantiated Rams walkthrough practice taping, and DFG, which is by far the most ridiculous thing of them all.
 

Dr. Gonzo

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2010
5,213
This sums it up best.

Spygate was a chest-thumping pissing match between Belichick and Goodell that Goodell was able to "win" by imposing an outsized fine as he fell back on his fainting couch crying "fair play" and "honest competition."

This is the text of the rule that Belichick broke:

Article 9.1 (C) (14) of the Constitution and Bylaws of the NFL (p 39 of this pdf): No member shall: "Use at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which a club is a participant, any communications or information gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game.” (Emphasis mine.)


First, notice that the rule doesn't mention filming of opponents' signals as that has never been prohibited by the NFL (see above). Next, note that the rule prohibits the use of videotaped material to aid a team "during the playing of a game."

Belichick argued that his videotaping was entirely for post-game analysis. In his statement announcing the Spygate penalties, Goodell actually corroborated that Belichick never used the filmed content to gain an advantage in the same game. Also, Patriots video man Matt Walsh, in his interrogation by the league had the followingto say about how the sideline videos were used:

Q. So you’d finish the tape, then give it to him?

A. Yeah. There was no rush after I finished to get it to him right away. Because typically we wouldn’t be playing the team for months to weeks later on. So if it was a clean copy of the tape, in other words, I didn’t think it needed to be edited for anything, then I could just leave it on his desk that night. If for some reason, I thought it needed to be edited with an actual game tape, just so it would be a cleaner copy for him, then I would take the time in the next day or so to do that.

In the end, the funny thing about Spygate (aka "The Greatest Cheating Scandal In The History Of The World") is that Goodell effectively admitted that no rule was actually broken. This backstory gives more context to Belichick's statement after the penalties were announced:

"As the commissioner acknowledged, our use of sideline video had no impact on the outcome of last week's game. We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress. Part of my job as head coach is to ensure that our football operations are conducted in compliance of the league rules and all accepted interpretations of them. My interpretation of a rule in the Constitution and Bylaws was incorrect."
Unfortunately for the Patriots, the technical breaking or non-breaking of the rule was not Goodell's big issue. Writes Ryan Sawtelle on his excellent take-down of Spygate: "Goodell and his office specifically told the teams NOT to do it – and that evil, insubordinate Belichick decided that he would stick to the rulebook – you know, the actual rule - and Goodell took that as a slap in the face to his authority. It was a battle of egos. That’s your “Spygate”. That’s what this entire circus was about. Horrifying. I know. People still think this is a scandal."
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,838
Unreal America
Why?

Have you changed anyone's mind?
Remember when you were a kid and you got in trouble for something you didn't do? Or when you were older and a friend was upset with you over some comment they were told you made, but that you actually didn't make?

Honestly, that's what gets to me particularly about "Spygate".

People have no clue what actually transpired, but they brand my favorite football team as "cheaters" out of complete ignorance. Is it important in the grand scheme of things? No, of course not. But it's realllllllly f*cking annoying to hear about it every single time you interact with the fan of another team.

And screw Dungy, my God he sucks so much.
 

Dahabenzapple2

Mr. McGuire / Axl's Counter
SoSH Member
Jun 20, 2011
8,926
Wayne, NJ
All they have is they have nothing. I've never met ANYONE outside this website who knows what "Spygate" was.

NEVER even close - they ALL get it wrong. Most think it is taping practices or that ONLY the Patriots ever taped signals during the game. Some of these people are smart and are actual NFL football fans. Around here they grew up on Fat Fuck Francesca and the local NY media and ESPN so why would they know any better?!?!?

ALL THEY HAVE:


Pats cheat!

Cheaters!!!

I FINALLY do not give a shit. So obvious to anyone that matters is

LOL boo hoo etc!!!
 

Dahabenzapple2

Mr. McGuire / Axl's Counter
SoSH Member
Jun 20, 2011
8,926
Wayne, NJ
But we also know that none of these accusers will ever take 1-2 minutes to read what Dr. Gonzo posted above.

They NEED for there to be some other reason besides The Patriots being way better than their teams. Especially fans of teams like the Jets, Dolphins, Chiefs, Colts & Steelers.

You know the teams the Pats been crushing for almost 2 decades.

Imagine if we get another 4 years of this??

Then it would be 20 years!!!

So Sweet
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
I ....
The only thing I'd add, and the last point I'll make, is that Bill Belichick is absolutely the greatest coach of all time and likely one of the smartest football minds of all time. He had this done, and if he he was having this done, there had to be a pretty good reason for it. I do not think Belichick does careless things. In retrospect I am sure he'd take it back, but just because he misjudged Mangini's willingness to be a snake does not mean there was no benefit to be had by recording these signals as he was instead of as he was allowed to do. I don't think Bill was just an idiot that didn't realize he could have done this in way X, Y or Z.
Apologies in advance for belaboring this, but I wanted to make one last point on the above. I don't doubt that Belichick felt there was some benefit to taping from the sidelines. Maybe in a double-blind trial there would be found to have been zero benefit. But that's not the real point; BB felt there was some benefit, or he would not have bothered.

However, the Pats made zero effort to conceal their videotaping practices even after the memo was sent to all 32 teams; we know that opposing coaches waved to the cameras from time to time (and probably made other, less friendly, gestures as well). We know that Mike Holmgren complained about the camera to the press. Which means one of the following was true:

a.) Belichick felt that the memo was something that could easily be ignored as a matter of routine, in that league has no right to issue memos clarifying rules, policies, and procedures.

b.) Belichick read the memo, and realized what he was doing was wrong. But felt that he could still take a chance anyway, and continue to openly film from the sideline, figuring noone would ever bother him about it, or if he did get caught, he would simply lie about it and get off with a token fine.

c.) Belichick truly interpreted the memo incorrectly, and assumed that he was in the clear because he wasn't using the video in the game.

If he was using the video at halftime, then you have to assume either (a) or (b) are correct. I guess either could be true, but neither one seems more likely than the last statement, which is consistent with what we've heard from Belichick, Goodell, Kraft, Mangini, and many others.
 

JoeSuit

New Member
Feb 9, 2017
77
New to the fray here. Here's my opinion (for what it's worth) on what the motivation was for filming signals.

BB likes to build up a dossier on coordinators as part of the team’s knowledge base for game planning. Being able to decipher hand signals may have allowed for a coordinator's tendencies to be determined (think: this particular D-coordinator like to bring edge heat on 3rd and less than 10yds…) Of course, maybe this can be determined after the fact by game film and all22, etc…but the actual film only shows you what the defense ended up doing. The call is often changed based on formation, etc. Think about how beneficial it would be to know what the call onto the field is most likely going to be (tendency) and what the defense tends to switch into based on O formation and how you can then adapt the O on the fly with a line call. This is basically called scouting!

For in game benefits, I really see one big benefit. If the opposition knows you are “spying” defensive signals, they may feel compelled to put more effort into the disguise of their signaling. Maybe they add a third or even a forth signaler to disguise the actual call. Maybe they feel compelled to change the signals and/or the signaler at halftime or even for each quarter. And maybe, just maybe the defense screws something up because of all of this and someone misses an assignment. Basically, they have to expend resources and perhaps complicate things for the defense on the field.

The “spying” description is ridiculous. You could argue because of the above that it is actually better to have the guying filming be highly visible.

Final note: if you think breaking the code in game is the primary goal…well, methinks you better be damned sure you’re right about it if you audible. My guess is that’s a bit risky and knowing the situational tendencies is the real objective.
 

Icculus

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
265
Gamehenge
...
c.) Belichick truly interpreted the memo incorrectly, and assumed that he was in the clear because he wasn't using the video in the game. ...
This is also where we get Goodell expanding his power. He can't change the rules of the game in a memo and the rules (per Dr. Gonzo) clearly stated it only mattered if you used it during the game. The memo misquoted the rule. I don't think you'll find anyone who won't say that BB should have, at a bare minimum, gotten clarification on the difference between the memo and the rules.

That said, I find it hard to fault BB for not realizing that the commissioner was so thin-skinned that he'd respond to BB's hubris with the harshest penalty in the history of the game (to that point) for what everyone admits is a trivial infraction. It was not breaking the rules, it was the affront to Goodell's "authoritah".
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
This is also where we get Goodell expanding his power. He can't change the rules of the game in a memo and the rules (per Dr. Gonzo) clearly stated it only mattered if you used it during the game. The memo misquoted the rule. I don't think you'll find anyone who won't say that BB should have, at a bare minimum, gotten clarification on the difference between the memo and the rules.

That said, I find it hard to fault BB for not realizing that the commissioner was so thin-skinned that he'd respond to BB's hubris with the harshest penalty in the history of the game (to that point) for what everyone admits is a trivial infraction. It was not breaking the rules, it was the affront to Goodell's "authoritah".
The infamous memo actually described an amendment to the NFL's Policies and Procedures manual that teams are expected to adhere by. That manual is published by the Commissioner's office, and Goodell, like the commissioner of all the major sports leagues in the US, has fairly wide latitude to set game day policies and procedures. And Belichick has been in the league long enough to know that. I understand your argument, but that alone does not forgive Belichick for failing to get the requisite clarification (you and I are in agreement there, but I've heard arguments to the contrary before).
 

troparra

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2007
1,921
Michigan
I would not really expect there to be some statement from the league or Mangini, as it's in everyone's best interest to downplay all of it. Even Mangini, because he'd be guilty by association of his time during the Pats. I won't go as far as to completely disagree with you about Mangini having no problem being specific and loud & proud about it, but I can see how he'd take a half measure. Again, we are all left to speculate and wonder.
Please clarify the bolded statement. Are you saying that the reason no one came forward with direct evidence of Patriot cheating during Spygate is because people were purposely keeping that damning evidence under wraps for the collective good?
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,966
Boston, MA
When discussing Spygate or Ballghazi with friends of opposing teams or just folks not fans of NEP, I stipulate at the beginning of the conversation: "Listen, if you want to discuss this, I'm happy to do so. But we have to stipulate that facts matter. I acknowledge that I am a fanatic about this, but I am also probably the most well-informed person you have run into on the topic. If you want to go on with "CHEATRIOTS!, Bellicheat! etc." then that's fine, but let's not discuss it. If you actually want to have a real conversation about it, let's do so."

That usually gets them to back off, or immediately gets them willing to listen. They still likely end up saying "ahhhh...they're cheaters", but it makes for a much better discussion.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
I'm sorry you're not able to grasp the mechanics of this. Nobody has said that the tape time would mimic the game time. And if you seriously believe there were not digital-capable handheld recorders in 2007 then I don't know what to tell you.
Regardless of the existence of DVR cams a decade ago, the Patriots weren't using them. They were using actual videocasette recorders, which now even you've granted would have taken them all of halftime to trackdown that one key defensive signal that was going to win them the game. Your fever dreams just don't pass the Ockham's Razor test. Sorry that logic is difficult for you.

Secondly you're ranting and raving and stomping your feet over something that no one's disputing, that it was stupid for Belichick to use the badly worded memo as an excuse to tape from the sidelines. That's been the consensus here from day one. Your fantasies about New England analyzing two hours of tape in 12 minutes, while still having time to address the normal halftime adjustments, are your own cross to bear.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Please clarify the bolded statement. Are you saying that the reason no one came forward with direct evidence of Patriot cheating during Spygate is because people were purposely keeping that damning evidence under wraps for the collective good?
It should be pretty clear by now that he owns stock in the conspiracy mill. Rationally speaking it was in Goodell's best interests to get everything out there to justify the punishment. But everyone involved agreed that Belichick was looking at the game tapes later.
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
8,015
0-3 to 4-3
Yeah. I literally said there would be MAYBE ten minutes of recorded tape and that still wasn't clear enough for you. I'm all set.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
All this "benefits of filming from one location vs another" is irrelevant. It's a simple story.

NFL has a rule, the specifics of which are irrelevant.
Teams are breaking this rule.
NFL sends memo to teams telling them not to break it.
Patriots are caught breaking it after the memo.
New Commish is pissed, takes it personally.
New Commish has to show his toughness and independence
Possibly egged on by jealous and petty NFL officials, new Commish imposes big penalty.

End of story, the rest is commentary.
Well, there is the whole thing with how it takes a league vote to change a rule and a memo means basically shit, which is why BB ignored it.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
If BB spent 0.0001% of the time we've discussed this using taped signals during a game to try to gain an advantage instead of other, more useful coaching things, he would have won 0.00001% as many Super Bowls.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,937
Berkeley, CA
Well, there is the whole thing with how it takes a league vote to change a rule and a memo means basically shit, which is why BB ignored it.
This was also my understanding of the basic problem.

I'd also like to back up Oil Can as he did write there'd only be about 10 minutes of tape.

Finally, regarding why BB preferred the camera on the sidelines, given what we know about BB, I'd imagine the ease of communication one on one with the cameraman and be hands on would fit his pattern of simple and efficient use of time. Although I don't know exactly where the cameraman stood relative to BB during games.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
Well, there is the whole thing with how it takes a league vote to change a rule and a memo means basically shit, which is why BB ignored it.
The memo highlighted an amendment to the NFL's policy manual, which means a lot more than "basically shit". If there was a conflict between the memo and a bylaw, ignoring a memo from the Commissioner is not the correct action. But it doesn't appear he ignored it; he just interpreted incorrectly.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Yeah. I literally said there would be MAYBE ten minutes of recorded tape and that still wasn't clear enough for you. I'm all set.
Yeah, no. There was a lot more than ten minutes of recorded tape per half. On the other hand it's good to see that you're still carrying on the good fight, Tomase.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
The memo highlighted an amendment to the NFL's policy manual, which means a lot more than "basically shit". If there was a conflict between the memo and a bylaw, ignoring a memo from the Commissioner is not the correct action. But it doesn't appear he ignored it; he just interpreted incorrectly.
First, I'm not arguing that he acted correctly. He should have had the guy move fifty feet or whatever. Second, I don't buy for a second he misinterpreted it. I'd wager he could probably recite the rule book word for word - has there ever been a coach with more attention to detail and more apt to exploit loopholes?

It was based on the fact that a memo 'highlighting an amendment' as you classify it is not considered a rule change and he saw it as a loophole that he got fucked on exploiting. It's very clear that the rules committee needs to vote on rule changes and this was never taken to them. Case in point, the rule change regarding eligible/ineligible receivers forced by the Ravens whining went through the rules committee, as small as a designation as it was. BB fucked up and they got overly punished but getting to the details, the change or amendment or what have you wasn't properly carried out and had it been, I don't think he would have done it. I will not, to my death bed, ever believe BB misinterpreted something regarding a league rule and I'd challenge you to prove why I should.

Bend but don't break applies to more than the defense.
 
Last edited:

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
No, but occasionally I get to insert some facts into the situation that they didn't know. And since when has that stopped anyone HERE from arguing with each other anyway?
Like the "facts" you inserted into the David Tyree is an anti-gay bigot conversation a few years back?

The whole thing is dumb and really more about identity than reality. So if people feel they need to prop themselves up over some belief system surrounding the Patriots cheating... well, I'd say fine, but it's really not. I think it's bad for people.

But we also know that direct antagonism props up that identity, so when we engage in it, we're perpetuating the cycle.

I think DrewDawg's approach of non-engagement here is the way to be better and urge others, even our erstwhile antagonists to do so as well.