Belichick has to fine-tune team's focus

Would that be the team's focus or the focus of the camera lense taking movies of their opponents' walk-throughs and defensive signals?

John McCain wrote:

Would that be the team's focus or the focus of the camera lense taking movies of their opponents' walk-throughs and defensive signals?

...the whole camera gate thing is so overblown and was old after week4 last year. You are just a sad jealous fool.

I guess the Vikes can look forward to losing their next 1st rounder if not the next 2 (as tampering is a far greater cheating offense than filming from a prohibited location)

Patriots coach Bill Belichick looks on as time winds down in last season's Super Bowl loss realizing he can't win one unless he cheats.

Facts vs Tards wrote:

Patriots coach Bill Belichick looks on as time winds down in last season's Super Bowl loss realizing he can't win one unless he cheats.

...don't hate us because we are beautiful...

Realist wrote:

<quoted text>I guess the Vikes can look forward to losing their next 1st rounder if not the next 2 (as tampering is a far greater cheating offense than filming from a prohibited location)

1. Cheating is cheating.

2. Don't try to minimize what the Pats were proven to have done by equating allegations to proof. GB hasn't proven anything yet.

3. Even if the allegations are true, talking to a player during the offseason to determine interest is no where near as egregious as filming on the oppositions sidelines during a game.

TMD wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Cheating is cheating.
2. Don't try to minimize what the Pats were proven to have done by equating allegations to proof. GB hasn't proven anything yet.
3. Even if the allegations are true, talking to a player during the off season to determine interest is no where near as egregious as filming on the oppositions sidelines during a game.

As the Comish said, it was a "rule violation" as there was no "in game" use of the film in question. Not "cheating" but a "rules violation", like off sides, as opposed to pumping in crowd noise to disrupt opponents signals (Colts) or salary cap shenanigans (49ers and Broncos) or the latest tampering (Vikes).

Why don't you stop exaggerating the extent and impact of the incident. As Brian Billick said, "it is no more a violation than defensive players barking out false signals" which is only a 5 yard penalty.

The Comish initially over-reacted as you are, however, the point I was making was that the Comish has set the bar so high, if the Vikes did talk to Favre they should expect to lose a couple of 1st round picks.

Realist wrote:

<quoted text>
Not "cheating" but a "rules violation", like off sides, as opposed to pumping in crowd noise to disrupt opponents signals (Colts) or salary cap shenanigans (49ers and Broncos) or the latest tampering (Vikes).

I can't believe after all this time there are still folks arguing semantics on this subject. One of the definitions of cheating is "violating rules or regulations", and you don't get penalized a first round draft pick and $750K for being off-sides. They're not the same thing.

The allegations against the Pats were proven, unlike the "pumped in crowd noise" allegations against the Colts. The claims were investigated by the commissioner's office and found to be untrue.

The 49ers and the Broncos were punished for their salary cap gymnastics, which just strengthens my point about the difference between an on-field infraction during a game and proven violations committed off the playing field.

.

Why don't you stop exaggerating the extent and impact of the incident. As Brian Billick said, "it is no more a violation than defensive players barking out false signals" which is only a 5 yard penalty.

I don't believe I mentioned anything about the extent or the impact of the Pats transgressions, however, I would agree that the Pats incidents were overblown.

With all due respect to coach Billick, he's wrong. As I previously mentioned, on-field infractions of the nature of those that he used in his example do not get you $750K fines.

.

The Comish initially over-reacted, as you are, however, the point I was making was that the Comish has set the bar so high, if the Vikes did talk to Favre they should expect to lose a couple of 1st round picks.

The commissioner's reaction to the Pats' situation is water under the bridge at this point, and my reaction has been very mild compared to many other fans across the league.

I would agree that Minnesota will pay a stiff fine if the tampering allegations are found to be true. I, however, don't think they will lose 2 1st rounders. Maybe a 1st round pick and some cash.

The commissioner is not happy with the way GB has handled this entire situation and he seems to be leaning towards appeasing Favre. besides that, this is another PR nightmare for him and he wants it to end.

Realist wrote:

<quoted text>
As the Comish said, it was a "rule violation" as there was no "in game" use of the film in question. Not "cheating" but a "rules violation",

Then why did they tape to begin with if is wasn't for cheating? What was the purpose?

I guess they were just a bunch of camera nerds making home movies.

Yea. we all are buying that one.

Nice try.

Facts vs Tards wrote:

<quoted text>
Then why did they tape to begin with if is wasn't for cheating? What was the purpose?
I guess they were just a bunch of camera nerds making home movies.
Yea. we all are buying that one.
Nice try.

Obviously you know nothing about the situation, nor coaching. The tapes were used for 2 purposes 1) the analysis of coaching tendencies of coaches and coordinators around the league and 2) to insure that the analysis was based on the play called not necessarily on the play run, as players often run the wrong route or take the wrong assignment.

To use it for "cheating" which is an "in game" use, you would need to be able to film, review, breakdown and assess the tapes in a very few minutes. Many former and present players and coaches have stated that the Pats could not have gained any "in game" advantage, as there was not enough time to do so.

As the Comish stated, the tapes were not used "in game" and constituted a rule violation. The fine was an overreaction to the implication that the Pats were purposefully ignoring his memo on the subject sent prior to the season.

Realist wrote:

<quoted text>
Obviously you know nothing about the situation, nor coaching. The tapes were used for 2 purposes 1) the analysis of coaching tendencies of coaches and coordinators around the league and 2) to insure that the analysis was based on the play called not necessarily on the play run, as players often run the wrong route or take the wrong assignment.

My bad, I didn't know I had to spell it out for the retards.

Here it goes again...in plain tard english with a link from ESPN stating the same thing:

Then why did they tape THE OPPOSING TEAMS SIGNALS SENT IN to begin with if is wasn't for cheating? What was the purpose?

I guess they were just a bunch of camera nerds making home movies.

Yea. we all are buying that one.

Nice try. I guess ESPN deosn't know anything about football either...Moron.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story...

It's like when you got caught spanking your monkey and you denied it with "I wasn't doing anything. I was combing my hair."

Of course anyone would lie and deny the act after being caught but the bottom line is Patriots did get got and lied their way out of it.

So just answer the question, truthfully:

WHY video tape defensive signal calls of the opposing team if you no intentions of using it to gain an advantage? What was the purpose??? Why then would you tape such things??? For fun????

We are eagerly awaiting the excuses.........please hurry I have to take a dump...lmao.

Fu<k that fat bastard cheating sack of shit. That Giant super bowl loss will make his team 18* and DONE without CHEATING FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!

Facts vs Tards wrote:

<quoted text>
My bad, I didn't know I had to spell it out for the retards.
Here it goes again...in plain tard english with a link from ESPN stating the same thing:
Then why did they tape THE OPPOSING TEAMS SIGNALS SENT IN to begin with if is wasn't for cheating? What was the purpose?
I guess they were just a bunch of camera nerds making home movies.
Yea. we all are buying that one.
Nice try. I guess ESPN deosn't know anything about football either...Moron.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story...

NO I don't think they do, listen to some of Mark Schlereth's idiotic statements and you will see what I mean, but you believe ESPN over the Comish's statement, so you will believe whatever BS ESPN feed you...Stupid (you see I can name call just like you). By the way I explained how they used the tapes, but I guess stupid people cannot read, just spout garbage.

Realist wrote:

<quoted text>
NO I don't think they do, listen to some of Mark Schlereth's idiotic statements and you will see what I mean, but you believe ESPN over the Comish's statement, so you will believe whatever BS ESPN feed you...Stupid (you see I can name call just like you). By the way I explained how they used the tapes, but I guess stupid people cannot read, just spout garbage.

It's like when you got caught spanking your monkey and you denied it with "I wasn't doing anything. I was combing my hair."

Of course anyone would lie and deny the act after being caught but the bottom line is Patriots did get got and lied their way out of it.

So just answer the question, truthfully, and stop avoiding:

WHY video tape defensive signal calls of the opposing team if you no intentions of using it to gain an advantage? What was the purpose??? Why then would you tape such things??? For fun????

We are eagerly awaiting the excuses.........please hurry I SERIOUSLY have to take a dump...lmao.

Realist wrote:

<quoted text>
NO I don't think they do, listen to some of Mark Schlereth's idiotic statements...

Mark Schlereth did not break the story...lolololol

"ESPN.com news services

NEW YORK -- New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick was fined the NFL maximum of $500,000 Thursday and the Patriots were ordered to pay $250,000 for spying on an opponent's defensive signals."

So just answer the question, truthfully, and stop avoiding:

WHY video tape defensive signal calls of the opposing team if you no intentions of using it to gain an advantage? What was the purpose??? Why then would you tape such things??? For fun????

We are eagerly awaiting the excuses.........please hurry I SERIOUSLY have to take a dump!!!

Facts vs Tards wrote:

<quoted text>
...lolololol
I SERIOUSLY have to take a dump!!!

...can anyone really sit in judgement of this redneck...is it really his fault that his trailer park upbringing failed him miserably?...

Facts vs Tards wrote:

<quoted text>
Mark Schlereth did not break the story...lolololol
"ESPN.com news services
NEW YORK -- New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick was fined the NFL maximum of $500,000 Thursday and the Patriots were ordered to pay $250,000 for spying on an opponent's defensive signals."
So just answer the question, truthfully, and stop avoiding:
WHY video tape defensive signal calls of the opposing team if you no intentions of using it to gain an advantage? What was the purpose??? Why then would you tape such things??? For fun????
We are eagerly awaiting the excuses.........please hurry I SERIOUSLY have to take a dump!!!

You must have crap for brains because I've answered you twice and you just don't like it...too f'n bad. Go spank your monkey and believe your dribble and we will see which team continues their dynasty and who doesn't.

...better check that dump, you might be losing the little brains you have left...

Come on cry baby, you did not answer the question. You gave these two lame excuses as to why coaches use cameras LEGALY to film on the field.
1) the analysis of coaching tendencies of coaches and coordinators around the league and
2) to insure that the analysis was based on the play called not necessarily on the play run, as players often run the wrong route or take the wrong assignment.

NEW YORK -- New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick was fined the NFL maximum of $500,000 Thursday and the Patriots were ordered to pay $250,000 for spying on an opponent's defensive signals."

QUESTION:

WHY video tape defensive signal calls of the opposing team if you have no intentions of using it to gain an advantage? What was the purpose??? Why then would you tape such things??? For fun????

Answer the question and stop avoiding!!!

By the way, the dump went fine...Belichick says "hi."

Come on cry baby, you did not answer the question. You gave these two lame excuses as to why coaches use cameras LEGALY to film on the field.

1) the analysis of coaching tendencies of coaches and coordinators around the league and
2) to insure that the analysis was based on the play called not necessarily on the play run, as players often run the wrong route or take the wrong assignment.

NEW YORK -- New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick was fined the NFL maximum of $500,000 Thursday and the Patriots were ordered to pay $250,000 for spying on an opponent's defensive signals."

QUESTION:

WHY specifically video tape defensive signal calls of the opposing team if you have no intentions of using it to gain an advantage? What was the purpose??? Why then would you tape such things??? For fun???? WHY???

Answer the question and stop avoiding!!!

By the way, the dump went fine...Belichick says "hi."

Tom Brady's side job as a penis superhero definitely is not going to help the Patriots' cause.

http://www.holytaco.com/2008/07/24/if-tom-bra...