Skins got their asses handed to them by the Pats. We cant seem to get all our cylinders firing at the same time.

Boy the way the Hogs did play, the Wild Bunch made the hit parade, guys like Riggins had it made, those were the days.

All I want now is for the Skins to beat Dallas once. That is my Superbowl.

(November 9, 2015 at 12:14 pm)Brian37 Wrote: All I want now is for the Skins to beat Dallas once. That is my Superbowl.

Unfortunately it looks like Romo will be back for both the Redskins games, so that might be a tough ask.

(November 9, 2015 at 12:26 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(November 9, 2015 at 12:14 pm)Brian37 Wrote: All I want now is for the Skins to beat Dallas once. That is my Superbowl.

Unfortunately it looks like Romo will be back for both the Redskins games, so that might be a tough ask.

Naw, cant say we will win both, but we do beat them even in sucky seasons. Rivals have a tendency to do that. Skins had a season I  remember where the only game we won was against Dallas. We can beat them, will we is a different story, but we can.

Wikipedia Wrote:Videotaping opposing coaches is not illegal in the NFL per se, but there are designated areas allowed by the league to do such taping.

This means that there are places in the skyboxes by which a team can get their game film. They can utilize those cameras any way they wish. If they are choosing to devote some of those cameras to recording coaching signals, they can---but it will come at the cost of certain vantage points for game film and real time film study. (In 2007 it was the B&W printouts that units would study in between drives, now it's the baby blue MS Surface tablets)

What the Patriots did was have people on the sidelines in NFL tracksuits (with the red "X" on it marking them as NFL crew) covering up their mandated Patriots gear. They were told to tell people, if asked, that they were with NFL Films, or if pressed, "Kraft Productions."

Don van Natta Wrote:The allegations against the Patriots prompted NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson to send a letter to all 32 team owners, general managers and head coaches on Sept. 6, 2006, reminding them that "videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited from the sidelines."

But the Patriots kept doing it. In November 2006, Green Bay Packers security officials caught Matt Estrella shooting unauthorized footage at Lambeau Field. When asked what he was doing, according to notes from the Senate investigation of Spygate that had not previously been disclosed, Estrella said he was with Kraft Productions and was taping panoramic shots of the stadium. He was removed by Packers security. That same year, according to former Colts GM Bill Polian, who served for years on the competition committee and is now an analyst for ESPN, several teams complained that the Patriots had videotaped signals of their coaches. And so the Patriots -- and the rest of the NFL -- were warned again, in writing, before the 2007 season, sources say.

But they kept on doing it anyways.

Don van Natta Wrote:ON SEPT. 9, 2007, in the first game of the season, Estrella aimed a video camera at the New York Jets' sideline, unaware he was the target of a sting operation. [...] During the first half, Jets security monitored Estrella, who held a camera and wore a polo shirt with a taped-over Patriots logo under a red media vest that said: NFL PHOTOGRAPHER 138. With the backing of Jets owner Woody Johnson and Tannenbaum, Jets security alerted NFL security, a step Mangini acknowledged publicly later that he never wanted. Shortly before halftime, security encircled and then confronted Estrella. He said he was with "Kraft Productions." They took him into a small room off the stadium's tunnel, confiscated his camera and tape, and made him wait. He was sweating. Someone gave Estrella water, and he was shaking so severely that he spilled it. "He was s---ting a brick," a source says.

Then Goodell and Kraft meet in Foxboro. Belichick says he misinterpreted the rule (after being sent no less than 2 notices that taping from the sidelines was against the rule.) Goodell looks at all the tapes, from as early as 2000. He decides that the appropriate thing to do is to destroy all the tapes immediately. The decision and fines came out two days later, and the Patriots said nothing in protest.

The fact is, they were notorious for cheating in other, more effective ways.

Don van Natta Wrote:In fact, many former New England coaches and employees insist that the taping of signals wasn't even the most effective cheating method the Patriots deployed in that era. Several of them acknowledge that during pregame warm-ups, a low-level Patriots employee would sneak into the visiting locker room and steal the play sheet, listing the first 20 or so scripted calls for the opposing team's offense. (The practice became so notorious that some coaches put out fake play sheets for the Patriots to swipe.) Numerous former employees say the Patriots would have someone rummage through the visiting team hotel for playbooks or scouting reports. Walsh later told investigators that he was once instructed to remove the labels and erase tapes of a Patriots practice because the team had illegally used a player on injured reserve. At Gillette Stadium, the scrambling and jamming of the opponents' coach-to-quarterback radio line -- "small s---" that many teams do, according to a former Pats assistant coach -- occurred so often that one team asked a league official to sit in the coaches' box during the game and wait for it to happen. Sure enough, on a key third down, the headset went out.

Don van Natter Report

They knew what they were doing. They knew it was against the rules. They did it for years, and when they got caught, they called it a "smear job" and all the loyal New England fans went right along with it. Deflategate was not ever about the balls. It was about Goodell fulfilling a promise that if Belichick got caught again the punishment would be much more severe. It probably didn't affect many games. There were some that stood out to Ernie Adams, and some of those games were big ones. The 2002 AFC Championship being one of them.

(November 9, 2015 at 1:22 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: The fact is, they were notorious for cheating in other, more effective ways.

Don van Natta Wrote:In fact, many former New England coaches and employees insist that the taping of signals wasn't even the most effective cheating method the Patriots deployed in that era. Several of them acknowledge that during pregame warm-ups, a low-level Patriots employee would sneak into the visiting locker room and steal the play sheet, listing the first 20 or so scripted calls for the opposing team's offense. (The practice became so notorious that some coaches put out fake play sheets for the Patriots to swipe.) Numerous former employees say the Patriots would have someone rummage through the visiting team hotel for playbooks or scouting reports. Walsh later told investigators that he was once instructed to remove the labels and erase tapes of a Patriots practice because the team had illegally used a player on injured reserve. At Gillette Stadium, the scrambling and jamming of the opponents' coach-to-quarterback radio line -- "small s---" that many teams do, according to a former Pats assistant coach -- occurred so often that one team asked a league official to sit in the coaches' box during the game and wait for it to happen. Sure enough, on a key third down, the headset went out.

Don van Natter Report

I don't really care about unfounded accusations and hearsay, because unless there was an actual investigation that found the Patriots doing any of those things, it's meaningless to bring them up. I don't want any cheating in the NFL, and all instances should be investigated, but until they do, you can't treat rumors as anything more than that.

Quote:They knew what they were doing. They knew it was against the rules. They did it for years, and when they got caught, they called it a "smear job" and all the loyal New England fans went right along with it.

I don't know about that. Most fans I speak to seem to accept Spygate as a stain on our history, but I think most would also say it was overblown. As I said before, the ability to film defensive signals isn't cheating itself, and why would it be, given that the coaches are in full view of each other on opposite sides of the field anyway. Was it wrong? Yes. Was it against the rules? Yes. Was it as big a deal as it was made out to be? No.

Quote:Deflategate was not ever about the balls. It was about Goodell fulfilling a promise that if Belichick got caught again the punishment would be much more severe.

That makes no sense though. The NFL investigation, flawed as it was when it came to the measurements / interviews / science aspects, still concluded that the coaching staff had nothing to do with it. Belichick didn't get caught again, the NFL exonerated him specifically in the report, and instead blamed Brady and a couple of prep staff.

You are correct though; Deflategate was not ever about the balls. It was likely an attempt by Goodell to try and restore his image as someone who can give out tough punishments, as he had been criticized for not going far enough with players who beat their wives / children. At the same time, he probably wanted to demonstrate that no player was out of reach, and he took the chance to not only suspend Tom Brady, a leading quarterback and Super Bowl champion, but suspend him for 4 games for what would have been a minor equipment violation. Of course, in this case ironically he ended up being criticized for going way too far, and a federal judge told him as much.

(November 9, 2015 at 2:32 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(November 9, 2015 at 1:22 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: The fact is, they were notorious for cheating in other, more effective ways.


Don van Natter Report

I don't really care about unfounded accusations and hearsay, because unless there was an actual investigation that found the Patriots doing any of those things, it's meaningless to bring them up. I don't want any cheating in the NFL, and all instances should be investigated, but until they do, you can't treat rumors as anything more than that.

Unfounded? Hearsay? Because van Natter didn't reveal his sources by name? Former Patriots coaches and staff don't count as credible sources and are rumors?

So any exposé where the writer protects his sources counts as hearsay? I disagree. This was a report sourced by over 90 NFL team executives, staff, and coaches---some of those directly related to the Patriots. The idea that it was a known thing by multiple NFL teams is significant.

To call it meaningless is just ridiculous when the people who did it or ordered it done admitted to it.

(November 9, 2015 at 2:32 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(November 9, 2015 at 1:22 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: They knew what they were doing. They knew it was against the rules. They did it for years, and when they got caught, they called it a "smear job" and all the loyal New England fans went right along with it.

I don't know about that. Most fans I speak to seem to accept Spygate as a stain on our history, but I think most would also say it was overblown. As I said before, the ability to film defensive signals isn't cheating itself, and why would it be, given that the coaches are in full view of each other on opposite sides of the field anyway. Was it wrong? Yes. Was it against the rules? Yes. Was it as big a deal as it was made out to be? No.

You are missing the point. Filming in this way gives an advantage because you don't have to sacrifice Tom Brady's cameras for real time defense and shell diagnosis during the game. You see QB's and defenses on the little blue tablets during the game? That comes from several angles that are stitched together for a 3D view in real time. In order to film from the press box, you would have to sacrifice some of those cameras for signal capture. That's why teams don't do it. Because real time diagnosis of actual plays is way more productive and effective than signal capture.

That is a big deal. When you play a good team the first part of the season, you are likely going to see them again in the playoffs. If you have recorded their defensive signals, then you can garner a significant advantage if the other team plays by the rules.

(November 9, 2015 at 2:32 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(November 9, 2015 at 1:22 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Deflategate was not ever about the balls. It was about Goodell fulfilling a promise that if Belichick got caught again the punishment would be much more severe.

That makes no sense though. The NFL investigation, flawed as it was when it came to the measurements / interviews / science aspects, still concluded that the coaching staff had nothing to do with it. Belichick didn't get caught again, the NFL exonerated him specifically in the report, and instead blamed Brady and a couple of prep staff.

You are correct though; Deflategate was not ever about the balls. It was likely an attempt by Goodell to try and restore his image as someone who can give out tough punishments, as he had been criticized for not going far enough with players who beat their wives / children. At the same time, he probably wanted to demonstrate that no player was out of reach, and he took the chance to not only suspend Tom Brady, a leading quarterback and Super Bowl champion, but suspend him for 4 games for what would have been a minor equipment violation. Of course, in this case ironically he ended up being criticized for going way too far, and a federal judge told him as much.

You'll never catch me defending Goodell's grudge here. I believe that Tom knew that the balls were being tampered with, and I believe his cell phone shenanigans were an attempt to subvert the investigation. For that, I will call his integrity into question but I will admit my bias, and not try to convince anyone else.

Goodell overplayed his hand, and was beholden to the other 31 owners who are sick of Kraft/Belichick and their continuous flouting of the rules.

I have been watching the NFL my whole life. I was a Belichick fan because of his ties to my alma mater. He is a great coach. Tom Brady is a great quarterback. They don't have to cheat. Yet they do. That is an integrity issue to me, and that will make me despise them not in a small part because it affected my team directly.

The Brady ballgate does stink a bit. But just like any other trial you are innocent till proven guilty. Brady is where he should be. I would say in the future institute better measures to insure no team can even be implied as to cheating. I don't see why any team should control their own balls in any case. Game balls should be controlled and checked by the reffs and never be in the hands of players until the actual game.

(November 9, 2015 at 3:27 pm)Brian37 Wrote: The Brady ballgate does stink a bit. But just like any other trial you are innocent till proven guilty. Brady is where he should be. I would say in the future institute better measures to insure no team can even be implied as to cheating. I don't see why any team should control their own balls in any case. Game balls should be controlled and checked by the reffs and never be in the hands of players until the actual game.

Lolz. Ballz in handz.

(November 9, 2015 at 3:20 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Unfounded? Hearsay? Because van Natter didn't reveal his sources by name? Former Patriots coaches and staff don't count as credible sources and are rumors?

Unfounded because yes, you can't just write something down and call it founded. Hearsay because yes, you can't point to a single investigation that actually uncovered any of the things he writes about. Mentioning sources by name would be helpful, but since these sources are people, and people are unreliable, they don't count for much. Anyone, be it a former head coach, staff member, or player, can on any day decide to say the Patriots cheated in some particular way, but them saying it doesn't make it true. So no, they don't count as credible sources; they are former staff, we don't know who they are, and under what circumstances they were made former staff. Maybe they have a grudge, maybe they want 15 minutes of fame and they were playing to the popular opinion that the Patriots cheat. Who knows? Nobody will unless there was an actual investigation. That's why we have investigations, because if we made judgements based solely on what people say, the world (not just football) would be one big mess.

Quote:So any exposé where the writer protects his sources counts as hearsay? I disagree. This was a report sourced by over 90 NFL team executives, staff, and coaches---some of those directly related to the Patriots. The idea that it was a known thing by multiple NFL teams is significant.

To call it meaningless is just ridiculous when the people who did it or ordered it done admitted to it.

Protecting sources is one thing, but the NFL not doing any investigation based on these sources is quite another. I will state it again. The exposé is utterly meaningless unless it actually leads to an investigation, or was based off a proper investigation. Neither of which are true. Anyone could write a similar exposé about any other team, interview people who had grudges against that team, or for some other reason are prepared to bend the truth, or just make sources up. It doesn't add any credibility to the exposé. What adds credibility is actual evidence of wrongdoing, which the report lacks.

Quote:You are missing the point. Filming in this way gives an advantage because you don't have to sacrifice Tom Brady's cameras for real time defense and shell diagnosis during the game. You see QB's and defenses on the little blue tablets during the game? That comes from several angles that are stitched together for a 3D view in real time. In order to film from the press box, you would have to sacrifice some of those cameras for signal capture. That's why teams don't do it. Because real time diagnosis of actual plays is way more productive and effective than signal capture.

That is a big deal. When you play a good team the first part of the season, you are likely going to see them again in the playoffs. If you have recorded their defensive signals, then you can garner a significant advantage if the other team plays by the rules.

OK, but I don't see how that negates my point. It seems that you could just position the cameras in the legal places and film defensive signals from there. It seems you are suggesting there is a limit to the number of cameras a team is allowed to use? I'm not aware of any limit; could you point out the specific rule that mentions it? Happy to be proven wrong on this point; I'm just not aware of any specific rule.

On your second point, what happens when someone in the stands films the defensive signals, uploads the film to YouTube, and someone from any NFL team happens to watch it. I'm having a hard time understanding how someone can "steal" something which can be seen in plain sight. Is there a rule about hiring a guy with really good vision to spend the entire game staring at the opposing coaches and writing down / memorizing signals?

Quote:You'll never catch me defending Goodell's grudge here. I believe that Tom knew that the balls were being tampered with, and I believe his cell phone shenanigans were an attempt to subvert the investigation. For that, I will call his integrity into question but I will admit my bias, and not try to convince anyone else.

What exactly do you base that belief on, if you don't mind me asking? In my opinion, based on reading a load of data from the case, the "ball tampering" didn't even occur in the first place. None of the text messages mention trying to deflate footballs to below 12.5 PSI (the legal minimum) and in fact mentioned that the NFL officials inflated them to 16 PSI in one game. On top of that, the readings taken from the game were all over the place, due to the measuring devices being inaccurate. When considering Brady's preference for footballs at 12.5 PSI, and the weather and temperature of the game, the cause of deflation is explained by the ideal gas law, especially lacking any kind of smoking gun.

Brady's cell phone "shenanigans" are also easily explained by the fact that he wasn't required to hand over his cell phone, and was also worried about leaks. His worries were well founded as the NFL later managed to leak a load of the emails from his lawsuit. Not the kind of organization you want to trust with your cell phone. He did turn over the data that the NFL were after though, in terms of text messages / phone call logs. Destroying a broken cell phone is also common behaviour, hardly a shenanigan.

Quote:Goodell overplayed his hand, and was beholden to the other 31 owners who are sick of Kraft/Belichick and their continuous flouting of the rules.

You ought to look up the meaning of the word "continuous", because one instance where they definitively cheated, and one instance with a very botched investigation that didn't even relate to Kraft / Belichick isn't "continuous".

Quote:I have been watching the NFL my whole life. I was a Belichick fan because of his ties to my alma mater. He is a great coach. Tom Brady is a great quarterback. They don't have to cheat. Yet they do. That is an integrity issue to me, and that will make me despise them not in a small part because it affected my team directly.

They don't have to cheat, you are correct, and in both instances, I still fail to see how the cheating even related to the outcome of a game or gave them an advantage. Again, stealing signals which are given in plain sight on the field is not stealing. A botched investigation which is debunked by applying a simple physics equation, and / or doing the experiment yourself is not the same as intentionally deflating footballs.

(November 9, 2015 at 3:37 pm)TheRealJoeFish Wrote:

(November 9, 2015 at 3:27 pm)Brian37 Wrote: The Brady ballgate does stink a bit. But just like any other trial you are innocent till proven guilty. Brady is where he should be. I would say in the future institute better measures to insure no team can even be implied as to cheating. I don't see why any team should control their own balls in any case. Game balls should be controlled and checked by the reffs and never be in the hands of players until the actual game.

Lolz. Ballz in handz.

There is no way to get through stories that involve the world "balls" without the jokes, it is simply a law of nature.