Patriots: Commish Determines They Violated League Rules | NFL

9/11/07

1	Interesting, ESPN.com's Sportsnation poll has 44% saying that if true, the Patriots should forfeit their victory against the Jets. That might be just a stretch.

9/11/07

Jubanator14

3	Little off topic, but Sports Center just broke the story that Kevin Everett will walk out of the hospital, not anytime soon but after a few weeks or months, he will be able to walk again.

9/11/07

MrNFL

0	Jubanator14 wrote: Little off topic, but Sports Center just broke the story that Kevin Everett will walk out of the hospital, not anytime soon but after a few weeks or months, he will be able to walk again. I heard that also, and that was great news to hear. Let's hope for a full recovery and a walking Kevin Everett in the near future.

9/11/07

Indydave

1	(Edited by Indydave) OUCH!!!! I still don't know why they supposedly did this-- I mean I believe that the Pats could beat the Jets with ease--- you can bet I'll make sure my comrades that work at the RCA dome know about this one

9/11/07

Nick S

0

Indydave wrote:

OUCH!!!! I still don't know why they supposedly did this-- I mean I believe that the Pats could beat the Jets with ease--- you can bet I'll make sure my comrades that work at the RCA dome know about this one

They weren't doing it for this game. I highly doubt they film the signals for 2 quarters and analysis it before the end of the game to figure out the Jets plays. I am 100% sure this is for the next time the teams play. That is why this game shouldn't be forfeited.

Also, if the Pats loose draft picks they will be of the 4th,5th and 6th round variety and the Pats almost never sign those guys. Not worried here.

9/11/07

Colello80

0	Whats the matter the Pats afraid of the jets that much they need to cheat to beat the Jets. and of all teams the Patriots.

9/11/07

Nick S

1	Just a question, can you do the same thing from the pictures taken and printed out during each play. Now I am not defending what the Patriots did, but if you are not going to allow teams Videotape the games and signals, why should you be able to take pictures of them?

9/11/07

Chief_aka_James

0	I understand its different sports, but couldn't this just be compared to baseball and "stealing" signs? In baseball, its more of a skill because your doing it on the fly. But is on film mean its completely out of the question and "unfair"?

9/11/07

IlliniBob72

3

Nick S wrote:

They weren't doing it for this game. I highly doubt they film the signals for 2 quarters and analysis it before the end of the game to figure out the Jets plays. I am 100% sure this is for the next time the teams play. That is why this game shouldn't be forfeited.

Also, if the Pats loose draft picks they will be of the 4th,5th and 6th round variety and the Pats almost never sign those guys. Not worried here.

They allegedly were doing this last season at Lambeau Field as well. If this is true, that would wipe out the theory that it was for the next time they played.

9/11/07

shschill

0

I think this is more or less the league enforcing an old rule. Just like they did with the chuck rule. The Pats have been cited in the past for this so this is nothing new. Teams try to steal signs all the time, thats why there is three people giving defensive signs. And I'm sure there is three people trying to match those signs up with the defensive formation and blitz packages. QB's are always looking at photographs of defensive formations trying to read the defenses and to get an edge. I think if Belichick can gain a 1% advantage in a game he will do it. The league wanted to enforce the rule this year and as it happens the first week the Pats get caught(Who coaches the Jets?).

9/11/07

kantwistaye

1	If I were the league I'd come down hard on the Patriots... I'm just not sure how. I don't think its fair to make them forfeit the game, but it'd probably be either a 1st and a third this year or 2nd round picks the next two years. We don't need anymore of this.

9/11/07

shschill

0

(Edited by shschill)
kantwistaye wrote:

If I were the league I'd come down hard on the Patriots... I'm just not sure how. I don't think its fair to make them forfeit the game, but it'd probably be either a 1st and a third this year or 2nd round picks the next two years. We don't need anymore of this.

I don think that it will be that harsh at all. It will probably be a late round pick and a fine. And I doubt this is the only team stealing calls.

9/11/07

kantwistaye

0

(Edited by kantwistaye)
shschill wrote:

I don think that it will be that harsh at all. It will probably be a late round pick and a fine. And I doubt this is the only team stealing calls.

It probably won't be as harsh, and I could care less if other team's steal calls. Its the manner in which the Patriots did that makes it so wrong, plus the fact that they've been accused of cheating many many times. If this was something everyone was doing there wouldn't be so many people talking about it. The NFL needs to make a stance on this and end it immediately.

I think any team that gets caught should get this punishment... and in the future even more because this needs to stop now.

9/11/07

gmaned14

0	The penalty has to be harsh. I really don't think that draft picks is enough in this case. To match up against the Jets and not have an even playing field is a crime for the Patriots.

9/11/07

Nick

0

This is going to be TOTALLY bias, coming from a Jets fan. Jets should get the win but that won't happen. The Jets barley had a chance to grab an INT, everytime the Pats scored in the air, the wideout was in the clear. I would love to look at tape to see how many audibles Brady called at the line. A 4th, 5th, and 6th round pick would show that this league can't put good punishments on a huge "crime," so to say.

9/11/07

shschill

2

kantwistaye wrote:

It probably won't be as harsh, and I could care less if other team's steal calls. Its the manner in which the Patriots did that makes it so wrong, plus the fact that they've been accused of cheating many many times. If this was something everyone was doing there wouldn't be so many people talking about it. The NFL needs to make a stance on this and end it immediately.

I think any team that gets caught should get this punishment... and in the future even more because this needs to stop now.

I agree with the fact that they are being smug in the way they were cheating. But stealing signs is part of the game. You just are not suppose to use cameras to do it. I will be surprised if this reoccurs within the league because this type of sign stealing really offers little advantage other than some half time adjustments. But those can also come from just watching the hand signs and looking a photos which is legal. A reason why the penalty will not be that harsh.

They need to use head sets like the offense. That may be the silver lining with this whole mess.

9/11/07

Nick S

0

Nick wrote:

This is going to be TOTALLY bias, coming from a Jets fan. Jets should get the win but that won't happen. The Jets barley had a chance to grab an INT, everytime the Pats scored in the air, the wideout was in the clear. I would love to look at tape to see how many audibles Brady called at the line. A 4th, 5th, and 6th round pick would show that this league can't put good punishments on a huge "crime," so to say.

So your saying the Patriots receivers were open because they new the Jets signals?? I am pretty sure its because the Defensive Backs got toasted. Stealing the signals would only help the Patriots with picking up the blitz and blocking for the run, not with how the receivers got open.

9/12/07

Nate

3

Nick S wrote:

So your saying the Patriots receivers were open because they new the Jets signals?? I am pretty sure its because the Defensive Backs got toasted. Stealing the signals would only help the Patriots with picking up the blitz and blocking for the run, not with how the receivers got open.

I am willing to bet that if this were the Jets in trouble and not the Patriots you would be calling for the book to be thrown at them.

The rules were broken and the Patriots were caught breaking them. It's no different than using HGH to gain a physical edge over the opponent. There should be a punishment, but I don't like the idea of crippling a team for years to come, and the draft would do just that, but I do like the idea of suspending Bill Bellichick for 4 games. Everyone knows that nothing happens on that Patriots sideline with out the Coach knowing about it, and you can't convince me that this isn't something he would think of.

9/12/07

Nick S

0

Nate wrote:

I am willing to bet that if this were the Jets in trouble and not the Patriots you would be calling for the book to be thrown at them.

The rules were broken and the Patriots were caught breaking them. It's no different than using HGH to gain a physical edge over the opponent. There should be a punishment, but I don't like the idea of crippling a team for years to come, and the draft would do just that, but I do like the idea of suspending Bill Bellichick for 4 games. Everyone knows that nothing happens on that Patriots sideline with out the Coach knowing about it, and you can't convince me that this isn't something he would think of.

Like I said, if you read in all the other posts, I am not defending the Patriots. So please don't accuse me of something if you don't know all the facts.

The Pats cheated, but in no way did it help the receivers get open, that is the stupid thing I have ever heard.

9/12/07

Nate

0

Nick S wrote:

Like I said, if you read in all the other posts, I am not defending the Patriots. So please don't accuse me of something if you don't know all the facts.

The Pats cheated, but in no way did it help the receivers get open, that is the stupid thing I have ever heard.

What's not so stupid is the idea that stealing play calls is what bought Tom Brady extra time to get those open receivers. A couple of those Randy Moss passes seemed like he had minutes to figure out what he was going to do.

9/12/07

Nick S

0

Nate wrote:

What's not so stupid is the idea that stealing play calls is what bought Tom Brady extra time to get those open receivers. A couple of those Randy Moss passes seemed like he had minutes to figure out what he was going to do.

Whats so stupid?? Doesn't matter if Brady staying in the pocket and took a nap, the receivers still had to run past the Defensive Backs. It was a good job by the receivers and it wasn't because they new they were going to blitz.

9/12/07

Nate

0

Nick S wrote:

Whats so stupid?? Doesn't matter if Brady staying in the pocket and took a nap, the receivers still had to run past the Defensive Backs. It was a good job by the receivers and it wasn't because they new they were going to blitz.

You aren't making any sense. I said "What's not so stupid" not being the operative word. It's not stupid to think that there may have been an unfair advantage given to Brady and his passing game. If somehow they were able to pick up a blitz, or know where the blitz is coming from thus allowing Brady more time, in a play that might have lead to him being sacked, that would be unfair. Right? Maybe Moss got open because of the amount of time Brady had? In which case the team cheating by finding out the defensive signs offered Brady more time to find his open receiver, and his receivers more time to get open. Now, I am not saying that's absolutely what happened, but we do know for a fact the Patriots did cheat. There is no way to know if it helped them or didn't help them to that extent. The question will always be there, in the exact same since as whether or not Barry Bonds would be the all time home run hitter had he not taken steroids.

9/12/07

Nick S

0

Nate wrote:

You aren't making any sense. I said "What's not so stupid" not being the operative word. It's not stupid to think that there may have been an unfair advantage given to Brady and his passing game. If somehow they were able to pick up a blitz, or know where the blitz is coming from thus allowing Brady more time, in a play that might have lead to him being sacked, that would be unfair. Right? Maybe Moss got open because of the amount of time Brady had? In which case the team cheating by finding out the defensive signs offered Brady more time to find his open receiver, and his receivers more time to get open. Now, I am not saying that's absolutely what happened, but we do know for a fact the Patriots did cheat. There is no way to know if it helped them or didn't help them to that extent. The question will always be there, in the exact same since as whether or not Barry Bonds would be the all time home run hitter had he not taken steroids.

I misread your post. But I think the Patriots cheating but that only helped the protection, you think differently, nothing wrong with that. But to think that it caused the Patriots to score 35 points isn't correct, IMO.

9/12/07

Nate

0

Nick S wrote:

I misread your post. But I think the Patriots cheating but that only helped the protection, you think differently, nothing wrong with that. But to think that it caused the Patriots to score 35 points isn't correct, IMO.

The thing is, no one would have ever questioned it, if they hadn't cheated. It's that simple. Because they cheated it leaves questions about how legit their wins are. Just like Barry Bonds.

9/12/07

Nick

0

Nick S wrote:

Like I said, if you read in all the other posts, I am not defending the Patriots. So please don't accuse me of something if you don't know all the facts.

The Pats cheated, but in no way did it help the receivers get open, that is the stupid thing I have ever heard.

How can that be the stupidest thing you ever heard when it's pretty logical? You can't say that it DIDN'T help them because if a guy is supposed to run a slant route and they pick up a cornerback blitz by stealing the signals, and Brady audibles at the line making the wide-out run a straight route, your saying that it's a equal matchup now? Atleast when the WR was running a slant route the CB blitzing may have had time to throw a block on him preventing him from getting open.

The stupidest thing I ever heard is you saying that your not defending the Pats, but calling my statement stupid.

9/12/07

Nick S

0

Nick wrote:

How can that be the stupidest thing you ever heard when it's pretty logical? You can't say that it DIDN'T help them because if a guy is supposed to run a slant route and they pick up a cornerback blitz by stealing the signals, and Brady audibles at the line making the wide-out run a straight route, your saying that it's a equal matchup now? Atleast when the WR was running a slant route the CB blitzing may have had time to throw a block on him preventing him from getting open.

The stupidest thing I ever heard is you saying that your not defending the Pats, but calling my statement stupid.

Like I said, I am not defending the Patriots for filming the other teams signals and they should be punished but apparently you missed the other thread.

Go ahead keep thinking that the signs helped the WR's, I am not going to try to change your opinion because that is pointless. The Patriots won 38-14 and the result isn't going to change, so it doesn't matter.

9/12/07

Nate

0

Nick S wrote:

Like I said, I am not defending the Patriots for filming the other teams signals and they should be punished but apparently you missed the other thread.

Go ahead keep thinking that the signs helped the WR's, I am not going to try to change your opinion because that is pointless. The Patriots won 38-14 and the result isn't going to change, so it doesn't matter.

Actually it could, there is talk of having them forfeit their first win. So yeah, that would change the results just a tad.

9/12/07

MrNFL

0

Nick S wrote:

Like I said, I am not defending the Patriots for filming the other teams signals and they should be punished but apparently you missed the other thread.

Go ahead keep thinking that the signs helped the WR's, I am not going to try to change your opinion because that is pointless. The Patriots won 38-14 and the result isn't going to change, so it doesn't matter.

If the receivers know the play the defense is callling, especailly zones, and knows where to find the holes in that zone, they'd be helped out quite a bit at being able to get open.

9/12/07

IlliniBob72

0

(Edited by IlliniBob72)

Not just that, but the whole idea of a blitz is to take guys that would be in coverage and sending them after the QB. You hope that the QB can't find the guy left open because he'll have to get rid of the ball quickly to avoid a sack (and getting killed). If the blitz is picked up, the defense is in trouble.

So, yeah, knowing when a blitz is coming and getting it blocked does, in a sense, help receivers get open.