L
Lareux
Guest
Much better explanation and proof than I tried to give yesterday (same idea though)....the bolded parts are the original writer's, not the person checking into his "analysis."
Tom Brady---Forever a Fraud?
- Thread starter ~Utah
- Start date
Much better explanation and proof than I tried to give yesterday (same idea though)....the bolded parts are the original writer's, not the person checking into his "analysis."
L
Lareux
Guest
From this article which goes to great lengths to show the flaw in many of the stats being used to prove the Pats as cheaters somehow.
http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-...e-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710/+kylenw
http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-...e-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710/+kylenw
L
Lareux
Guest
Same format...initial claim in bold...
L
Lareux
Guest
Based on the assumption that fumbles per play follow a normal distribution, you'd expect to see, according to random fluctuation, the results that the Patriots have gotten over this period, once in 16,233.77 instances". First off, thank goodness we are going to 2 decimal places for accuracy. Was 1 in 16233 not enough for readers to understand? But that's not our main issue with this statement.
Per the "data scientist," let's assume that fumbles per play follows a normal distribution. This, in fact, does seem like a reasonable assumption based on the following Q-Q plot (the points should all fall near the line if the data is normal).
Given that the normality assumption is valid, we can calculate the Z-score for fumbles per play for the Patriots. To do this, we take the Patriots fumbles per play (0.00535) and subtract the mean of fumbles per play for each team (0.00983) and divide by the standard deviation of fumbles per play for each team (0.00165). This yields a Z-score of -2.71. Still assuming a normal distribution, a team would only be better than this (i.e. have a lower Z-score) about 0.336% of the time, or 1 in 297. That's pretty rare, but nowhere near 1 in 16233.77. So where did that 16000-ish number come from?
It's arrived at by using plays per fumble, rather than fumbles per play. If you use plays per fumble and calculate the same Z-score for the Patriots you get 3.84. We can then calculate that a team will do better than this (i.e. have a higher Z-score; higher is better for plays per fumble) about 1 in 16256. So we're guessing this is where that number comes from.
The problem is that this calculation also relies on the assumption of normality, which holds for fumbles per play, but NOT for plays per fumble (see the Q-Q plot)!
The "data scientist" and the author validly assumed that fumbles per play followed a normal and then went ahead and calculated the Z-score based on plays per fumble, a variable that is strongly skewed to the right. Formally, X being normal does not imply that 1/X is also normal.
If this is how that happened, it would be a sloppy misstatement of statistics stemming from an arbitrary preference in diction. Either that, or the author just went for the most improbable result that he could find.
Which in layman's terms means that this result only being a coincidence, is like winning a raffle where you have a 0.0000616 probability to win. Which in other words, it's very unlikely that it's a coincidence.
Good clarification for all the laymen out there. Laymen love probabilities like 0.0000616. Much clearer than that "1 in 16233.77."
Per the "data scientist," let's assume that fumbles per play follows a normal distribution. This, in fact, does seem like a reasonable assumption based on the following Q-Q plot (the points should all fall near the line if the data is normal).
Given that the normality assumption is valid, we can calculate the Z-score for fumbles per play for the Patriots. To do this, we take the Patriots fumbles per play (0.00535) and subtract the mean of fumbles per play for each team (0.00983) and divide by the standard deviation of fumbles per play for each team (0.00165). This yields a Z-score of -2.71. Still assuming a normal distribution, a team would only be better than this (i.e. have a lower Z-score) about 0.336% of the time, or 1 in 297. That's pretty rare, but nowhere near 1 in 16233.77. So where did that 16000-ish number come from?
It's arrived at by using plays per fumble, rather than fumbles per play. If you use plays per fumble and calculate the same Z-score for the Patriots you get 3.84. We can then calculate that a team will do better than this (i.e. have a higher Z-score; higher is better for plays per fumble) about 1 in 16256. So we're guessing this is where that number comes from.
The problem is that this calculation also relies on the assumption of normality, which holds for fumbles per play, but NOT for plays per fumble (see the Q-Q plot)!
The "data scientist" and the author validly assumed that fumbles per play followed a normal and then went ahead and calculated the Z-score based on plays per fumble, a variable that is strongly skewed to the right. Formally, X being normal does not imply that 1/X is also normal.
If this is how that happened, it would be a sloppy misstatement of statistics stemming from an arbitrary preference in diction. Either that, or the author just went for the most improbable result that he could find.
Which in layman's terms means that this result only being a coincidence, is like winning a raffle where you have a 0.0000616 probability to win. Which in other words, it's very unlikely that it's a coincidence.
Good clarification for all the laymen out there. Laymen love probabilities like 0.0000616. Much clearer than that "1 in 16233.77."
L
Lareux
Guest
...
L
Lareux
Guest
There are a few other problems with the SharpFootball investigation that we didn't even bring up—issues of multiple testing and the post-hoc fallacy, for example—but we figured it was more important to provide a different look at New England's fumble rates than to continue rambling about best practices.
We'd also encourage interested readers to check out Brian Burke's post at Advanced Football Analytics for a more reasoned take on fumble rates. However, Burke likewise restricts his analysis to "fumbles per play," which we believe is a bit broad, because all offensive plays are not created equal.
Going back to 2007, we isolated the running back rushing attempts and wide receiver receptions made by each team, using easily downloadable data from NFL.com. There is a downside to this, however, as we do not get to look at quarterback-specific fumble rates. But including quarterbacks requires worrying about the pressure each one faced and the time each one had to release the ball, which can vary by team and offensive system; quarterback hits and sacks, likewise, are harder to fit into a single silo than rushes or receptions. It would also give the appearance of fewer fumbles per play among teams with a higher percentage of plays involving quick throws, incompletions, and interceptions. These are the types of plays where fumbles are less likely to occur, so the result is an inflation of the denominator in fumbles per play.
There's less variability to worry about with running backs and wide receivers, however. Here's a plot of the fumbles per 100 rushes, using running backs and fullbacks only.
New England running backs have the fewest fumbles per 100 rushes (about 0.6) of any NFL team going back to 2007, but the difference between New England and the rest of the league isn't as extreme as previous authors suggested—its about 1.5 to 2 fumbles per season. And this puts a point on the whole indictment of these posts: There are some broad and relatively minor observations to be made, if you're conspiratorially-minded enough to make the effort, they just don't have the statistical muscle that you'd expect given how widely they've traveled.
Here's a similar metric, using fumbles per 100 receptions. Only fumbles after receptions are shown here, meaning that special teams fumbles and muffed punts are not included, and the study group includes wide receivers, tight ends, and running backs.
New England finished with the third-lowest fumble rate on receptions, looking at all regular season plays between 2007 and 2014. Interestingly enough, the Ravens, who have been cited as one of the possible whistle blowers for Ballghazi, post the lowest per-reception fumble rate.
Given the number of teams in the league, it is not far-fetched to see one with fumble rates this low. Neither of these results appear all that extreme or insane, and, most certainly, they are not "extremely abnormal."
Additional analysis could also average over the per-game differences in fumble rates, which would help to further isolate the conditions on each game day, and would help mitigate the effects of each game's conditions and field surface. From our graphs, however, it doesn't seem all that obvious that teams with indoor stadiums fumble less often, which is a point that both Burke and SharpFootball tried to make. Detroit, for example, boasts the second-highest RB fumble rate using our metric, despite playing home games indoors.
If better context for quarterback possessions and fumbles were made available, a comparison of the fumble rates of QBs would be warranted as well.
We'd also encourage interested readers to check out Brian Burke's post at Advanced Football Analytics for a more reasoned take on fumble rates. However, Burke likewise restricts his analysis to "fumbles per play," which we believe is a bit broad, because all offensive plays are not created equal.
Going back to 2007, we isolated the running back rushing attempts and wide receiver receptions made by each team, using easily downloadable data from NFL.com. There is a downside to this, however, as we do not get to look at quarterback-specific fumble rates. But including quarterbacks requires worrying about the pressure each one faced and the time each one had to release the ball, which can vary by team and offensive system; quarterback hits and sacks, likewise, are harder to fit into a single silo than rushes or receptions. It would also give the appearance of fewer fumbles per play among teams with a higher percentage of plays involving quick throws, incompletions, and interceptions. These are the types of plays where fumbles are less likely to occur, so the result is an inflation of the denominator in fumbles per play.
There's less variability to worry about with running backs and wide receivers, however. Here's a plot of the fumbles per 100 rushes, using running backs and fullbacks only.
New England running backs have the fewest fumbles per 100 rushes (about 0.6) of any NFL team going back to 2007, but the difference between New England and the rest of the league isn't as extreme as previous authors suggested—its about 1.5 to 2 fumbles per season. And this puts a point on the whole indictment of these posts: There are some broad and relatively minor observations to be made, if you're conspiratorially-minded enough to make the effort, they just don't have the statistical muscle that you'd expect given how widely they've traveled.
Here's a similar metric, using fumbles per 100 receptions. Only fumbles after receptions are shown here, meaning that special teams fumbles and muffed punts are not included, and the study group includes wide receivers, tight ends, and running backs.
New England finished with the third-lowest fumble rate on receptions, looking at all regular season plays between 2007 and 2014. Interestingly enough, the Ravens, who have been cited as one of the possible whistle blowers for Ballghazi, post the lowest per-reception fumble rate.
Given the number of teams in the league, it is not far-fetched to see one with fumble rates this low. Neither of these results appear all that extreme or insane, and, most certainly, they are not "extremely abnormal."
Additional analysis could also average over the per-game differences in fumble rates, which would help to further isolate the conditions on each game day, and would help mitigate the effects of each game's conditions and field surface. From our graphs, however, it doesn't seem all that obvious that teams with indoor stadiums fumble less often, which is a point that both Burke and SharpFootball tried to make. Detroit, for example, boasts the second-highest RB fumble rate using our metric, despite playing home games indoors.
If better context for quarterback possessions and fumbles were made available, a comparison of the fumble rates of QBs would be warranted as well.
L
Lareux
Guest
As a final postscript, we'll touch briefly on the third post in the series (here). It has its share of issues, like using an aggregated two-sample comparison despite having paired data, and the continued use of the skewed plays per fumble data, but our favorite part of the new post is that the author posts his individual player data, which demonstrates that not only is he using inappropriate methods, but he is also using the wrong data.
Can you tell what's wrong the data in this table?
Look in the bottom row. Brandon Tate is listed as having 11 fumbles in 35 touches during his time playing for "Non NE". That's absurd. How is that possible? Is Tate a fumbling machine?
Of course not.
According to NFL.com, all 11 of Tate's fumbles during his four years with the Bengals came on kick or punt returns, and because special teams fumbles use different balls, there is no reason for them to be included in this analysis. In other words, not only was the author using inappropriate methods in all three of his posts, but there is a reason to believe he also wasn't using the correct data, either.
While the best part of statistics is analyzing the data, what can make the subject so challenging is the breadth of work that is required in addition to the analysis phase. Tasks like cleaning your data, checking for its accuracy, and examining the validity of your assumptions, however, aren't just recommendations—they're requirements. And without considering these subtle but important steps in any investigation, its easy for any of us to drop the ball.
Can you tell what's wrong the data in this table?
Look in the bottom row. Brandon Tate is listed as having 11 fumbles in 35 touches during his time playing for "Non NE". That's absurd. How is that possible? Is Tate a fumbling machine?
Of course not.
According to NFL.com, all 11 of Tate's fumbles during his four years with the Bengals came on kick or punt returns, and because special teams fumbles use different balls, there is no reason for them to be included in this analysis. In other words, not only was the author using inappropriate methods in all three of his posts, but there is a reason to believe he also wasn't using the correct data, either.
While the best part of statistics is analyzing the data, what can make the subject so challenging is the breadth of work that is required in addition to the analysis phase. Tasks like cleaning your data, checking for its accuracy, and examining the validity of your assumptions, however, aren't just recommendations—they're requirements. And without considering these subtle but important steps in any investigation, its easy for any of us to drop the ball.
L
Lareux
Guest
Not so fast with the "back and to the left" after all...(I know that's satirical by you, but I liked the reference)
And the operators of the website sharpfootballanalysis.com apparently don't know what the word "sharp" means.
L
Lareux
Guest
Yeah, or he's just fumble prone. He has fumbled 9 times in 3 season with NE.
Funny how it's gotten really quiet in this thread once some people who actually know what they're talking about have rebutted the BS stats and "analysis" that were thrown out there in the past week and a half. They just confirmed what myself and a few others were trying to say all along.....it makes little sense to find some stat to "prove" that NE cheats without the proper context (and, as it turns out, without being deceptive with those stats/numbers in the first place). It's cricket central in here now.
T
tipyerbartender1
Guest
They're still crunching the cheating numbers. Give 'em a minute.
L
Lareux
Guest
Lol. Seriously though, the full on "Salem" treatment was given to the Pats based on the great sports media in this country, and apparently some idiots who run a "smart" football analysis website.
Like I said at least once...it would make more sense to just say "I hate the Pats" before any statement they made, or bogus stat/chart they used to try and show the Pats are cheaters. It would be more respected that way, as opposed to trying to actually intelligently argue how they are cheaters when a. the numbers/stats they were using were not only wrong, they were purposely manipulated to show the Pats cheat, and b. they simply hate the Pats to begin with, so it makes little sense to even take their points seriously to being with.
And, I'm still not saying the Pats are completely exonerated or anything, but they certainly haven't been "proven" to be decade long cheaters based on some bogus, twisted, manipulated stats that have been proven wrong by some guys who actually know what the fuck they're talking about.
takeit
THE Wife
I don't hate the Pats, but I think they (someone in their organization) deflated the balls. I think if it was due to the weather, the Colt's balls would have been deflated as well. Both sides have all kinds of support and that support (for both sides) has been debunked.
As I stated before, I believe when a team has cheated in the past, it is easier to believe they would cheat again.
As I stated before, I believe when a team has cheated in the past, it is easier to believe they would cheat again.
L
Lareux
Guest
But, even if you think they deflated the balls for the Indy game, that doesn't at all prove they've done it for close to a decade. Not to mention, AGAIN, it was 50 degrees in that Indy/NE game...why would they have needed to deflate the balls in, what can easily be considered, as not cold weather?
If your assertion is that they deflate balls in all of their games, then that simply invalidates the charts posted showing how Brady's #s get better in cold weather. It's a catch-22 that the people saying NE is guilty cannot logically escape from.
What do you mean by both sides have had all kinds of support that has been debunked? Outside of Bellichick's explanation, which was most likely proven to be wrong (unless they were using heated air to inflate the balls), the ONLY side that has had anything debunked is the witch-hunters who have called them guilty based simply on them being the Pats.
L
Lareux
Guest
We also need to do some type of forum, or discussion, on what Spygate was really all about. Everyone acts as if the Pats were doing something so fucking crazy, that it's the only reason they won games. The practice WAS legal in the years preceding their penalty (yes, it was 'banned' before they got caught). But, they were guilty of taping in a "restricted" area...it wasn't the taping itself that was against the rules.
Every single team has tapes on other teams...the Pats were just doing it from a certain area that it was no longer allowed. If they, or any other team, really wanted to, I'd imagine they could have gotten a lens good enough to simulate taping from that restricted area from another spot on in the stadium.
The issue is that a vast majority of people assume that the taping itself is what got the Pats in trouble (which isn't even close to being true)...or even that other teams weren't doing the same thing they were. They simply got caught because they were warned in the past and were being watched more closely...and it wasn't even the NFL that busted them, it was an opponent's coach.
The whole taping of the Rams walk through was completely bogus, and the paper who initially reported that it was true, in fact, retracted their story after they found out the truth. Of course, the witch hunters don't remember the retraction, they simply remember what "proves" them to be right.
Every single team has tapes on other teams...the Pats were just doing it from a certain area that it was no longer allowed. If they, or any other team, really wanted to, I'd imagine they could have gotten a lens good enough to simulate taping from that restricted area from another spot on in the stadium.
The issue is that a vast majority of people assume that the taping itself is what got the Pats in trouble (which isn't even close to being true)...or even that other teams weren't doing the same thing they were. They simply got caught because they were warned in the past and were being watched more closely...and it wasn't even the NFL that busted them, it was an opponent's coach.
The whole taping of the Rams walk through was completely bogus, and the paper who initially reported that it was true, in fact, retracted their story after they found out the truth. Of course, the witch hunters don't remember the retraction, they simply remember what "proves" them to be right.
takeit
THE Wife
Does it matter how long they've been doing it? Is it not cheating *if* they only did it once?
You don't think both sides have had their theories debunked? The people that say they have always done it because of trends have had others say why those trends don't prove anything and the people that say weather caused the deflation have had others say why that is not true.
You don't think both sides have had their theories debunked? The people that say they have always done it because of trends have had others say why those trends don't prove anything and the people that say weather caused the deflation have had others say why that is not true.
L
Lareux
Guest
After footage from the actual tape was aired on Fox NFL Sunday on September 16, former Dallas Cowboys head coach Jimmy Johnson claimed, "This is exactly how I was told to do it 18 years ago by a Kansas City Chiefs scout. I tried it, but I didn't think it helped us." Johnson also said, "Bill Belichick was wrong because he videotaped signals after a memo was sent out to all of the teams saying not to do it. But what irritates me is hearing some reactions from players and coaches. These players don't know what their coaches are doing. And some of the coaches have selective amnesia because I know for a fact there were various teams doing this. That's why the memo was sent to everybody. That doesn't make [Belichick] right, but a lot of teams are doing this."[SUP][24][/SUP]
Belichick KEPT doing it after the league told everyone to stop...that doesn't mean they were "cheating" for years and years (since it wasn't against the rules most of that time), it only means they didn't heed the NFL's warnings. And yes, they deserved punishment for that, but the way the whole thing is perceived by the general public is just laughable, at best.
Belichick KEPT doing it after the league told everyone to stop...that doesn't mean they were "cheating" for years and years (since it wasn't against the rules most of that time), it only means they didn't heed the NFL's warnings. And yes, they deserved punishment for that, but the way the whole thing is perceived by the general public is just laughable, at best.
L
Lareux
Guest
No, I admitted that what Belichick ran out there may have been debunked...but what he said IS possible with heated air.
On the other hand, almost every single "stat" that was thrown out as proof by those idiots was debunked...by a whole bunch of people.
L
Lareux
Guest
On November 27, 2010, the NFL fined the Denver Broncos and their head coach Josh McDaniels, who served as an assistant coach under Belichick from 2001–2008, $50,000 each after Broncos video director Steve Scarnecchia videotaped the San Francisco 49ers' walkthrough practice prior to the October 30, 2010 NFL International Series game in Wembley Stadium, London.[SUP][71][/SUP] Scarnecchia, the son of longtime Patriots offensive line coach Dante Scarnecchia, was a video assistant for the Patriots in 2001–2004, before joining the Jets' video department for the 2006–2007 seasons.[SUP][71][/SUP] As a result of the NFL's findings, Scarnecchia was fired by the Broncos, and is subject to a hearing regarding a possible ban from the NFL for twice being involved in an integrity-of-game policy violation.[SUP][71][/SUP]
L
Lareux
Guest
In their May 14, 2008, issue the Boston Herald published an apology to the Patriots and their fans for publishing the February 2, 2008, story that cited an unnamed source in alleging the Patriots had taped the Rams' walkthrough prior to Super Bowl XXXVI.[SUP][12][/SUP] The newspaper said that while they believed their source to be credible, they never viewed a videotape of the walkthrough, or talked to anyone that had. Thus, they wrote, they should not have published the story, which they deemed to be false, "in the absence of firmer verification."[SUP][12][/SUP] The next day, Boston Herald Editor-in-Chief Kevin Convey took full responsibility for the publication of the story, while standing behind the work of Tomase and the Herald's sports department.[SUP][63][/SUP]
takeit
THE Wife
Not sure how many people really still care about spygate. But the Patriots/Billichick were fined almost a million bucks and a first round draft pick. If they really felt they did NOTHING wrong, they would have fought that. And from what you posted: Johnson also said, "Bill Belichick was wrong because he videotaped signals after a memo was sent out to all of the teams saying not to do it.
L
Lareux
Guest
Right. Takeit, are you not reading what I'm writing?
Yes, they were guilty of continuing a practice that EVERY team did before it was "outlawed" (and most likely more than just the Pats continued to do). Not once did I say they weren't guilty of breaking that rule. My point was that what they were doing was NOT even close to this huge advantage that the general public thinks it was. They were simply taping from a sideline location when it was banned previously. They could have taped the same stuff they were taping from the Press box with a super zoom lens if they wanted to...and would have gotten the same info on their opponent.
T
tipyerbartender1
Guest
take, can you believe you care if they did or not? The scandal is a live parody.
L
Lareux
Guest
I'm not entirely sure, but if they did I don't think they stuck a needle in to do it. I think they would have used heated air which would then lower the pressure easier, so they were complying with the NFL rules when they were tested before the game.
Either way, the advantage gained from a deflated ball (to the level they were deflated) isn't anywhere near a huge advantage....as proven by ESPN's Sports Science....whose video was mysteriously deleted from ESPN's website.
takeit
THE Wife
I understand. They broke the rule. I consider that cheating. I think it stains their reputation and makes it easier to believe they would cheat again. Their coaches go to another team and do the same shit.
takeit
THE Wife
So do you consider this cheating or thinking outside the box?
L
Lareux
Guest
Sure, they broke the rules. But the advantage gained wasn't much, if anything, since they could have taped the same signals from somewhere else in the stadium.
They could have even had someone on the sideline simply relaying the signals up to someone in the press box who kept notes. They chose to take a shortcut, and were punished for it. The reaction about the whole thing is completely fucking beyond ridiculous though.
L
Lareux
Guest
Cheating, sure. Show me someone who isn't trying to cheat though. EVERYONE is trying to gain an advantage...some are just better at it that others. They were "caught" and were punished.
Do you consider the advantage they gained that significant in the first place? If so, why? Since I've laid out how they could have gone about getting the same signals in other way.
takeit
THE Wife
If the advantage wasn't much, why did they continue to do it?
L
Lareux
Guest
I just told you why. My Lord Take, read one of my posts ffs.
It was EASIER to do it the way they were doing it, as opposed to the other avenues they could have taken to "legally" get the same info.
L
Lareux
Guest
The best part about Spygate to me was when the ESPN hype machine did an interview with Hines Ward and he swore up and down that the Pats knew what plays they were going to run before they ran them, as if that was some kind of proof the Pats were cheating. Why it was the best part, and so hilarious, is that the Pats were found to be taping the DEFENSIVE signals of their opponents....how in the fuck did anything Hines Ward said validate anything? Of course, no one pointed that out...it was just easier to say "see, Hines Ward said they cheat."
L
Lareux
Guest
Sure.
L
Lareux
Guest
Can we also just start calling anyone who commits a penalty a "cheater" though? Holding is against the rules (outside of the frame of the chest), but guys do it all the time...are they not cheating in the same way the Pats were? Both are simply breaking rules...the advantage gained can be considered similar as well. They broke a rule, yes. They were punished, yes. They weren't, however, getting this crazy advantage that no other team had by what they were doing though....they were just doing the taping from an area they weren't supposed to be...the TAPING itself was NOT against the rules.
takeit
THE Wife
OK... reading through Wiki and not understanding the part about where they were allowed to tape from a different area. I am reading this as they weren't allowed to tape:
Two days later, Belichick issued a statement "to apologize to everyone who has been affected," and also stated that he spoke with Goodell about Belichick's "interpretation of the rule."[SUP][13][/SUP] Page 105 of the 2007 NFL Game Operations Manual states, "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game...All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."[SUP][15][/SUP] Belichick stated that he believed that if footage so collected was not used during the game, its collection was legal, as the NFL Constitution and Bylaws stipulate that "...any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited...including without limitation...any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."[SUP][16][/SUP] In a September 2006 memorandum sent out by NFL Vice President of Football Operations Ray Anderson, though, all teams were told that "videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."[SUP][16][/SUP]
What am I missing?
Two days later, Belichick issued a statement "to apologize to everyone who has been affected," and also stated that he spoke with Goodell about Belichick's "interpretation of the rule."[SUP][13][/SUP] Page 105 of the 2007 NFL Game Operations Manual states, "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game...All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."[SUP][15][/SUP] Belichick stated that he believed that if footage so collected was not used during the game, its collection was legal, as the NFL Constitution and Bylaws stipulate that "...any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited...including without limitation...any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."[SUP][16][/SUP] In a September 2006 memorandum sent out by NFL Vice President of Football Operations Ray Anderson, though, all teams were told that "videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."[SUP][16][/SUP]
What am I missing?
L
Lareux
Guest
How do teams have tape of other teams then? Do they simply use the TV footage? Hahahaha.
The taping of the signals themselves was prohibited, again...sure. But, like I asked, why couldn't a team just have a few guys watching the signals and relay them to someone who writes them down? They are still getting the same information. Just because the NFL decided to make taping the signals against the rules (in 2006, so anything before that is NOT cheating), doesn't mean teams can't still get that info. Like you said, they were lazy and just continued to keep doing it the same way they, and every other team, was doing it before 2006.
Since the memo went out in 2006, and it wasn't against the rules before that, and every team was doing it before that....how exactly does that invalidate the Pats SB victories from before 2006 again? (not saying you said that, but it's clearly a popular refrain from the masses) Even if they were doing the same thing they were punished for....it wasn't against the rules, so they were not cheating. Just a bunch of misinformed sheep repeating things they've heard on ESPN or wherever.
T
tipyerbartender1
Guest
Browns seem to cheat right and left with that holding and offsides. And they're always sneaking too many men on the field.
takeit
THE Wife
Maybe they should be allowed an extra man since it doesn't give them much of an advantage
L
Lareux
Guest
What about this though Takeit?
After footage from the actual tape was aired on Fox NFL Sunday on September 16, former Dallas Cowboys head coach Jimmy Johnson claimed, "This is exactly how I was told to do it 18 years ago by a Kansas City Chiefs scout. I tried it, but I didn't think it helped us." Johnson also said, "Bill Belichick was wrong because he videotaped signals after a memo was sent out to all of the teams saying not to do it. But what irritates me is hearing some reactions from players and coaches. These players don't know what their coaches are doing. And some of the coaches have selective amnesia because I know for a fact there were various teams doing this. That's why the memo was sent to everybody. That doesn't make [Belichick] right, but a lot of teams are doing this."[SUP][24][/SUP]
Again, the Pats were caught...sure. They were caught because a former assistant went to an opponent and blew the whistle....that doesn't mean other teams weren't doing the same thing, they just didn't get caught by the NFL (the Pats didn't get "caught" by the NFL either, they were ratted on). Are they only "cheaters" because they were caught, or are they "cheaters" because of what they were doing? If other teams were doing the same thing, but not caught, are they not cheaters as well?
After footage from the actual tape was aired on Fox NFL Sunday on September 16, former Dallas Cowboys head coach Jimmy Johnson claimed, "This is exactly how I was told to do it 18 years ago by a Kansas City Chiefs scout. I tried it, but I didn't think it helped us." Johnson also said, "Bill Belichick was wrong because he videotaped signals after a memo was sent out to all of the teams saying not to do it. But what irritates me is hearing some reactions from players and coaches. These players don't know what their coaches are doing. And some of the coaches have selective amnesia because I know for a fact there were various teams doing this. That's why the memo was sent to everybody. That doesn't make [Belichick] right, but a lot of teams are doing this."[SUP][24][/SUP]
Again, the Pats were caught...sure. They were caught because a former assistant went to an opponent and blew the whistle....that doesn't mean other teams weren't doing the same thing, they just didn't get caught by the NFL (the Pats didn't get "caught" by the NFL either, they were ratted on). Are they only "cheaters" because they were caught, or are they "cheaters" because of what they were doing? If other teams were doing the same thing, but not caught, are they not cheaters as well?
L
Lareux
Guest
:rofl:
L
Lareux
Guest
Not to mention, the Pats were apparently taping defensive signals so they could study them after the game...so they weren't using that information in the game they were taping the signals in. What NFL team isn't changing signals every single game they play? With how paranoid every NFL coach/organization is, there's almost no chance teams use the same signals from game to game. Coaches still cover their mouths when calling plays, even though most in this thread seem to think only the Pats cheat...why cover your mouth if no one is going to be trying to read your lips? Oh, that's right....every single team is trying to "cheat" in any way possible, at all times.
KJ
Bump. Set. Shuma!
You're wrong, dead wrong
but you will continue to believe you're right so you effectively killed the thread. No one wants to debate a two bit know it all
It gets old, so pat yourself on the back and feel good. Again. Gotta be routine, your thread killing.
L
Lareux
Guest
And you gotta be routine by posting after I post saying the opposite of whatever I've said (not just me, you have a few guys you do the same thing to).
If I'm wrong, please let me know how. I like to be wrong....means I've gotten to the truth. You aren't gonna hurt my feelings bro, I like to learn. Teach me.
Either way, we've gotten off topic in this thread (and that's my fault for bringing up Spygate). BUT, I'll wait for you to call out everyone else who was wrong in this thread about those bogus, embellished, and flat out wrong stats that were proven to be wrong about this new scandal, since that's what they were all using to "prove" the Pats are cheaters and have deflated footballs for years. I won't hold my breath though, because I'd be dead quickly.
:shake:
KJ
Bump. Set. Shuma!
ESPN > Larry, and it's not close
Even if they aren't, they get the benefit of the doubt at this point. You hate the media dude, bfd
And you kill decent discussion with your nbafan type bullshit. Go play trivia since you know everything, you and teeed ought to match up well, can't believe you'd miss a one though, just a hunch
Even if they aren't, they get the benefit of the doubt at this point. You hate the media dude, bfd
And you kill decent discussion with your nbafan type bullshit. Go play trivia since you know everything, you and teeed ought to match up well, can't believe you'd miss a one though, just a hunch
KJ
Bump. Set. Shuma!
It's pointless, you can always find some obtuse angle to support yours, like I can as well
Good riddance
Similar threads
