StarDestroyer.Net BBS

You don't have to that much, really. Defenses are always substituting, so send in the play with the players.

LMSx wrote:This Patriots thing, if I understand it right, is ridiculous because they could accomplish the exact same thing by sticking some shlub in row 3 in the stands, giving him a video camera, and it would apparently be ok. It's just that the Pats' flunkie was on the sideline with the video camera that broke the rules.

The easy solution which solves this whole issue is to give the MLB defensive signals through a radio headset. It's fair, considering they already do it for the QB.

Yes that is basically right, plus if you watch the broadcasts of the game a lot of the time you can see the hand signals, its just that most people are focused on the players and never notice them. Also a slight angle adjustment on the game cameras that the teams use for watching film would capture them all anyway.

They've been trying to get headsets for the defense. The problem is that, on defense unlike the offense, not every team uses the same position to call in the signals. Some teams use a LB, or a DB or even a D lineman, you can't give them all a headset. Also, say your middle linebacker has the headset, but in passing downs he comes off the field for a speedier LB or a slow safety, you can't have ever possible play caller for the defense with a headset. but if the player with it comes off the field, now the offense has the advantage again. If you give the headset to multiple players then the D has the advantage.

The little green stickers on QB helmets this year denotes the only helmet to get a headset. In the past all the QBs had them and you could see the backups listening to the plays on the sidelines, They eliminated that and either only one helmet per game gets the headset or only one is activated. It seems like a step in the direction of giving the defense a miked helmet.

havokeff wrote:

LMSx wrote:This Patriots thing, if I understand it right, is ridiculous because they could accomplish the exact same thing by sticking some shlub in row 3 in the stands, giving him a video camera, and it would apparently be ok. It's just that the Pats' flunkie was on the sideline with the video camera that broke the rules.

The easy solution which solves this whole issue is to give the MLB defensive signals through a radio headset. It's fair, considering they already do it for the QB.

Yes that is basically right, plus if you watch the broadcasts of the game a lot of the time you can see the hand signals, its just that most people are focused on the players and never notice them. Also a slight angle adjustment on the game cameras that the teams use for watching film would capture them all anyway.

They've been trying to get headsets for the defense. The problem is that, on defense unlike the offense, not every team uses the same position to call in the signals. Some teams use a LB, or a DB or even a D lineman, you can't give them all a headset. Also, say your middle linebacker has the headset, but in passing downs he comes off the field for a speedier LB or a slow safety, you can't have ever possible play caller for the defense with a headset. but if the player with it comes off the field, now the offense has the advantage again. If you give the headset to multiple players then the D has the advantage.

The little green stickers on QB helmets this year denotes the only helmet to get a headset. In the past all the QBs had them and you could see the backups listening to the plays on the sidelines, They eliminated that and either only one helmet per game gets the headset or only one is activated. It seems like a step in the direction of giving the defense a miked helmet.

I had some arguments explaining why I thought you were wrong and why the headset radio could be executed by the NFL, but then I realized Elfdart's substitution plan is much simpler and foolproof.

It sounds so much simpler, in fact, that I wonder why the Jets were even using hand signals?

LMSx wrote:I had some arguments explaining why I thought you were wrong and why the headset radio could be executed by the NFL, but then I realized Elfdart's substitution plan is much simpler and foolproof.

It sounds so much simpler, in fact, that I wonder why the Jets were even using hand signals?

Hey they aren't my reasons. They are the NFL's competition committee's reasons.

The reason why sending in plays with the subs is not fool proof is Peyton Manning. Your lucky if you can even get one sub in when he is in a hurry up, which is about 80% of the time, let alone a sub with a new play. Other teams know this and they have started copying, or at least trying to. Hand signals are the only way to get the plays in in these situations.

Elfdart wrote:Nice job of selective quoting. I wrote "on-field hoodlum behavior", like late hits, fighting, trash talking, taunting and other forms of intimidation. Sure the more brazen offenders are "punished" -a donation to charity of a few thousand dollars from a multi-millionaire. OOOOOHH! That will teach 'em a lesson! Are you trying to be funny or are you that fucking stupid? You do realize that a number of teams have an unofficial WE PAY ALL FINES policy, don't you?

So what do you think the NFL will do about the Pats and their cheating? Fine the coach? See above. Suspend the coach? The assistants do most of the work, anyway. Take away draft picks? New England is about as loaded as any team in the league and in any event, their best players are late-round draftees (like Tom Brady) or free agents (like Randy Moss), so that won't hurt the team either.

I don't know what the League will do, and I agree with you that they don't punish other forms of cheating harshly enough. This has nothing to do with whether or not the Pats should be punished for their behavior, which I think is actually worse than giving players steroids that provide only maringal advantages.

If much more serious and chronic cheating (Denver's O-line) aren't punished that severely, I doubt something as trivial as videotaping another team's hand signals will be, either.

I think we disagree about the magnitude of the offense. Again, I view this as worse than steroids, which leads to the suspension of players caught, and commensurate punishment could be extremely damaging to a team.

This whole farce is the result of NY media homers who thought that since the Jets played way over their heads last year and somehow got into the playoffs, that they were comparable to the Patriots. As we saw last Sunday, the Jets are a slightly above average team that just got their noses rubbed in it by a Super Bowl contender and are groping for excuses. Isn't it funny how the Jets' coach had nothing to say about the stealing of signals when he was an assistant with the Patriots? But suddenly the Jets get their asses kicked in a home opener and now Bellichick is Professor Moriarty. Give me a break.

Yes, because my whole argument is prefaced on the innocence of all other teams of football. The point is, the Patriots were caught and have been in the past.

This is not just the NY Media catching this story. It has been a big deal in the LA media out here as well and they don't even have a football team.

Ha ha!

There we go. A slap on the wrist. And guess what? They are still gonna spank the Jets next time they play them. They will probably win the SB as well.
And wow no 1st round pick for a team that gets most of their talent in the free agent market and later rounds. A real punishment would have been a forfeit of their next game and ONLY getting a 1st round pick next year.

I'm not big on football, but being from New England I couldn't avoid hearing way too much about the story.

Frankly, if a single video camera can defeat your entire defensive strategy, your team has worse OpSec than a Pop Warner team. Most of the ire I've seen has not so much been over the Pats cheating, but the Pats cheating in different, more technological ways than everyone else.

My prediction: The scandal will be a boon for the Patriots, as they now have a rep in a league that condemns shenanigans with a smile and a wink. They will keep doing what they got caught doing, and the only difference will be that all the other teams will start doing it too, if they don't already.

havokeff wrote:Ha ha!

There we go. A slap on the wrist. And guess what? They are still gonna spank the Jets next time they play them. They will probably win the SB as well.
And wow no 1st round pick for a team that gets most of their talent in the free agent market and later rounds. A real punishment would have been a forfeit of their next game and ONLY getting a 1st round pick next year.

The fine was way higher than what I thought it would be -if anything. The loss of a draft pick won't hurt much. If Goodell wanted to stick it to the Pats, he would have awarded that 1st-rounder to the Jets.

The problem I have with the whole situation isn't how New England cheated, it's that they deliberately broke a rule without regard.

Qwerty 42 wrote:The problem I have with the whole situation isn't how New England cheated, it's that they deliberately broke a rule without regard.

Uh..that's what cheating is.

havokeff wrote:

Qwerty 42 wrote:The problem I have with the whole situation isn't how New England cheated, it's that they deliberately broke a rule without regard.

Uh..that's what cheating is.

I should rephrase: It's been brought up here that the form of cheating exercised by New England was one that was innocuous. My statement was that it doesn't matter to me which rule they broke, but the fact that they consciously broke a rule is troubling, because that probably leaves other cheating up in the air.

LMSx wrote:This Patriots thing, if I understand it right, is ridiculous because they could accomplish the exact same thing by sticking some shlub in row 3 in the stands, giving him a video camera, and it would apparently be ok. It's just that the Pats' flunkie was on the sideline with the video camera that broke the rules.

Untrue. To have a camera anywhere where it can be accessed during the game is a violation of the rule. Any video camera must be inside a structure with four walls and a roof. It's a simple rule, the commissioner sent a letter reminding coaches of the rule after the preseason, and the Patriots violated the rule.

The easy solution which solves this whole issue is to give the MLB defensive signals through a radio headset. It's fair, considering they already do it for the QB.

The competition committee tried. It failed by two votes for this season. The Belicheat scandal certainly sounds like it's convinced at least four of the nay-sayers to vote yes next time.

havokeff wrote:Oh for fucks sake. You guys do realize that the games are TAPED right? Even if there was a guy that had his camera trained right on the D coordinator for every play for the whole game, THEY CAN JUST CHANGE THE SIGNALS BEFORE THE NEXT TIME THEY PLAY. They should be doing that any way. Part of studying film is looking at what a team does in a given situation, seeing what certain players tells are. This is just a very extreme case of the same thing.

And the reason the rule exists as it does is so a camera can't be taken into the locker room at halftime to show the signals to the players during the game. Every team does change their signals between games; keeping unrestricted cameras off the field keeps them from having to change their signals every quarter.

There is not ONE single game in the last 5 years that the Patriots won that they would have lost if they didn't know "teh magiks of teh hand signalz!!!111"

Prove it. You've made an affirmative statement, now prove that every win was done without the aid of cheating.

One question I have, is there a difference between watching the Defensive Coordinator to decipher hand signals and watching the QB for a tell?

Dr. Z from Sports Illustrated wrote:I covered Houston's victory over San Diego in the 1979 Divisional Playoff. An Oilers safetyman named Vernon Perry intercepted four Dan Fouts passes that afternoon, and my story was that Houston had stolen the Chargers signals ... it was Gregg Bingham, an Oilers linebacker, who had told me about it, in the locker room, without spelling out how it worked. I found out when I ran into Bingham in a bar in the off-season.

"Very simple," he said. "We read Fouts' feet before the snap. When they were square, he would hand off on a running play. When one was behind the other, it was going to be a pass. Worked every time."

A simpler era. A happier one. No fancy electronics. No white collar NFL crime.

Of course, he thought this was better than those damned Patriots because...they didn't use technology. He acknowledges that looking for these tells is cheating, but gives it a pass because instead of videotaping the QB, someone on the defensive team noticed, and then probably let everyone on the Oilers defense know so they could all exploit it. Same result, but less technology, so somehow it's better.

With defensive coordinator hand signals and Fouts' feet position, both are broadcasting their next play just as loudly. One's just doing it from a different part of the field.

Civil War Man wrote:I'm not big on football, but being from New England I couldn't avoid hearing way too much about the story.

Frankly, if a single video camera can defeat your entire defensive strategy, your team has worse OpSec than a Pop Warner team. Most of the ire I've seen has not so much been over the Pats cheating, but the Pats cheating in different, more technological ways than everyone else.

Not really the point. If you can't strike the guy out who has been pumping up on HGH does it change the fact that the guy taking the steroid was cheating? Lets go to a simpler and even crazier matter in the Tennis rulebook: If you take 22 seconds between service points as oppossed to the allowed 20 seconds does it really affect your opponents game?

These are issues were violating the rule may be large or small but the matter remains that the rules are defined as what is "fair" for all participants in the game. If you fail to abide by those rules then it is cheating. It doesn't matter how much of a competitive edge it gives you (and taping signals is actually a pretty decent edge, even more sointerfering with the headset frequencies) it is still a breach of the idea of fairness and must be punished.

New England is also in the situation that they have been accussed of this before AND they, along with all other teams, were specifically warned against doing this at the beginning of the year. If the commissioner of the leauge tells you don' and you do anyway then that is a slap in the face to the leauge and, again, must be addressed.

The Dark wrote:

There is not ONE single game in the last 5 years that the Patriots won that they would have lost if they didn't know "teh magiks of teh hand signalz!!!111"

Prove it. You've made an affirmative statement, now prove that every win was done without the aid of cheating.

It's only cheating if you get caught. They didn't get caught, therefor they didn't cheat. Proven.

Untrue. To have a camera anywhere where it can be accessed during the game is a violation of the rule. Any video camera must be inside a structure with four walls and a roof. It's a simple rule, the commissioner sent a letter reminding coaches of the rule after the preseason, and the Patriots violated the rule.

As I said, that was my prior understanding. It sounds like the NFL is smarter then I gave them credit for.

Personally, I think the game in which the video cheating incident occurred should have been declared a forfeit in addition to the other sanctions on New England. The fines Belichek and the team can swallow, and losing their first draft pick is a problem for a few months from now. But they're still benefiting from a win they shouldn't have gotten and could affect the playoff race down the line.

Patrick Degan wrote:Personally, I think the game in which the video cheating incident occurred should have been declared a forfeit in addition to the other sanctions on New England. The fines Belichek and the team can swallow, and losing their first draft pick is a problem for a few months from now. But they're still benefiting from a win they shouldn't have gotten and could affect the playoff race down the line.

The film was confiscated in the middle of the first quarter I believe. I don't think it had any bearing on the game itself. The should forfeit the next game to the Jets if anything.

I would like to point out to everyone however, that while the offense may have benefited from knowing the hand signals, the defense had no such advantage as the plays are called in directly from the coaches through the headset. Nothing to steal, unless they taped the frequencies.

Also just because you know what play is coming doesn't mean that you can stop it. Look at the Packers under Vince Lombardi. Everyone KNEW they were gonna run sweeps, left or right was the only choice, and they still couldn't stop them.

Civil War Man wrote:One question I have, is there a difference between watching the Defensive Coordinator to decipher hand signals and watching the QB for a tell?

<snip>

With defensive coordinator hand signals and Fouts' feet position, both are broadcasting their next play just as loudly. One's just doing it from a different part of the field.

The more I read about that game, the more I'm convinced the signals and the positioning of Fouts' feet had nothing to do with the outcome. Trying to guess whether Don Coryell's Chargers were going to throw the ball is like trying to guess whether or not bears shit in the woods. The team wasn't nicknamed Air Coryell because all the other nicknames were taken. They would throw 40-50 times a game, compared to maybe half that often for most other teams. The Chargers' running game was a non-factor that year, so there was no need to worry much about it -or cheat to stop it. On top of that, just about everyone who played against Fouts knew about his habit of keeping one foot back on passing plays long before that game. It was a habit of his ever since his knees were injured in his rookie season.

On this board, there's a discussion about the game with people who have seen tapes of it recently. In short, three of the five picks were essentially punts. On 3rd and long, deep passers would often heave it downfield. If it was incomplete, you punted. If it was completed, you either scored or at least got a 1st down, and if it was intercepted it was way downfield -the same as a punt. The fourth pick was a pass that was deflected and the fifth was a last second desperation throw. This doesn't strike me as being the result of anything particularly clever. As it turns out, the Oilers won because they ran the ball down the throat of the Chargers' defense (this would cost them the AFC Champsionship the following year), a defense that couldn't get off the field whether it was getting manhandled by power running teams, or jumping offsides -which they did on a regular basis. They also blocked a field goal and got two cheap touchdowns (one a fluke play to Mike Renfro, the other a botched FG that ended up being a first down because the Chargers jumps offsides) and won the battle of field position.

So then what was the real secret to Houston’s success against the Chargers? I went back to former Oilers coach Bum Phillips and asked for a recap.

“The idea was to rush our front three linemen straight up the middle, trying to force the line back into Fouts’ face,” Phillips remembered. “An outside rush wouldn’t work because his line was too good and Fouts was a pro at working in the pocket. If we couldn’t get to him, we insisted our players get their hands up and try to block the ball. Evidently, Fouts couldn’t see very good because he made some bad throws and we blocked some passes.”

There you have it. Not nearly as glamorous an explanation, is it? Frankly, I prefer the shadowy tale of espionage and intrigue. Much better reading.

Like most of the tales of a team cheating to win, this one turns out to be bogus.

Back on subject, I think the fine and loss of a pick are more for flouting the rules after being warned than the cheating itself. I hope Goodell slaps the Donkeys just as hard when they chop-block or put lube on their jerseys.

Patrick Degan wrote:Personally, I think the game in which the video cheating incident occurred should have been declared a forfeit in addition to the other sanctions on New England. The fines Belichek and the team can swallow, and losing their first draft pick is a problem for a few months from now. But they're still benefiting from a win they shouldn't have gotten and could affect the playoff race down the line.

The (supposed) reason the NFL did not go with forfeiture was that the footage taken was not used for that particular game, but was going to be used when the two teams met again in Foxboro. If that is the case then the rules infraction did not have an impact on the game and thus a forfiet would be too much. I don't 100% believe that, but that's what i've been hearing.

Meanwhile I'm content with the punishment handed out, although it doesn't seem like much we have the largest fine against a coach in NFL history and the unprecedented move of taking away a draft pick. A good move by the NFL. Although i'm still not too happy with how they handed the Dallas situation, I think Goddell is proving himself to be an able commissioner.

well, I think it's prediction time based solely in which teams I like better. Let's see how it goes .

Buffalo at Pittsburgh- Tie
Atlanta at Jacksonville
Indianapolis at Tennessee
Green Bay at New York Giants
Houston at Carolina
San Francisco at St. Louis
Cincinnati at Cleveland
New Orleans at Tampa Bay
Dallas at Miami
Minnesota at Detroit
Seattle at Arizona
Kansas City at Chicago
New York Jets at Baltimore
Oakland at Denver
San Diego at New England
Washington at Philadelphia

EDIT: 7-8 so far

Pittsburgh
Jacksonville
Indianapolis
Green Bay
Carolina
San Francisco
Cincinnati
New Orleans
Dallas
Detroit
Seattle
Chicago
Baltimore
Denver
San Diego
Philadelphia

SDN NFL Prediction Records: (9/14/07)

Elfdart: 11-4
Darth Fanboy: 9-6
Havokeff: 7-8

Darth Fanboy wrote:SDN NFL Prediction Records: (9/14/07)

Elfdart: 11-4
Darth Fanboy: 9-6
Havokeff: 7-8

yeah whatever... I'm just rusty.