Patriots Cheating Games rehashed

I used to like ESPN2's Bill "The Sports Guy" Simmons' writing. I liked his insightful observances (The "Patrick Ewing" Theory) and his quirky lists (Levels of Losing). I could even get over his unabashed homerness... partially because I was a Red Sox fan. But then something happened about a year and a half ago. The Sports Guy entered the main event at the World Series of Poker and got sucked out on his all-in bet two hours into Day 1.

Go ahead and read it. It's rife with annoying hubris and whiny crybaby comments. Some of my favorite lines include "nobody had trips, I could tell from the body language" (No, he could tell because of hindsight. If he's so good at reading people why isn't he playing professionally?) and "And you know what this nitwit had? A-K. With the odds now significantly in my favor (84.3 percent).." (Yeah, but what was he doing calling a $550 bet, not a small amount 2 hrs in, against 3 other players and K-10 in the first place? His pre-flop odds against just one A-K was at best around 30%.) It was like Bill Simmons was starting to become one of those people he always complained about: a combination of spoiled athlete and a know-it-all sportswriter.

And so last week, when his New England Patriots were caught cheating he and another Boston sports fan (who is also a writer) decided to explain away their favorite team's indiscretions in a article I commented on last week. But I guess that wasn't enough. He's come back with more excuses and whines.

So as Jules Winnfield might say, "Well, allow me to retort."

1. Since practically the first 9 or 10 paragraphs can be compacted into "My team is good. The Chargers aren't as good, but everyone thinks they are and we beat the crap out of them but no one seems to care because of this stupid little cheating thing. Especially YOU NBC!" I can easily respond to that: What in the world were you expecting? Did you really think people were just going to forget that the team that barely won 3 of the last 6 Super Bowls was just caught cheating? Trust me, the coverage will/should die down soon enough, seriously, you need to give it at least a few weeks!

Now on to the answers:

And yet, the Patriots videotaped another team's signals for three-fourths of a quarter and everyone reacted like they kidnapped a Jets assistant and tortured him for information or something.

Are you kidding? Do you really think all of this is ONLY about three-fourths of a quarter on September 9th? Sure, it's circumstantial evidence, but it's evidence nonetheless of a pattern of cheating. Or did you really think that this was the only time the Patriots had ever done this?

Is there a chance -- just a chance -- Belichick has gotten a little paranoid in his old age, and since an undermanned Jets team played them closely in all three Pats-Jets games last season, he spent the spring and summer wondering if Mangini had figured out a way to steal their signals, so he decided to tape their coaches in Week 1 to see if that was true? And then he got caught?

Wait, so maybe you do think this is the first time they've done this. Don't you think that's being at least just a little bit naive? It's certainly naive to think that most football fans aren't at least wondering how far back their cheating goes. And considering the many close margins of victory they Patriots have had (especially in the Super Bowls), you don't think this is at all valid?

The Patriots cheated in one game. They got caught, they paid the price.

Wow! So you actually do think it's the only time. STOP being so naive.

But since they've already paid a steep penalty for a one-time indiscretion, can we move on with the 2007 NFL season, please?

Yes, they have, rightfully so, paid a steep price for that single incident, but it's amazing that you would think we should just stop at that. That we should just assume that this is the only time it has happened. The rest of us are moving along with the 2007 season, but that certainly does not preclude us from looking back.

We live in a world in which... So save me the moral indignation about CameraGate.

Save you the moral indignation? How about saving the rest of us from your pathetic melodramatic diversion. Yeah, the world is messed up and there are a bunch of stuff more important that CameraGate, but these people get paid to write and talk about FOOTBALL, not all of those other things. And in the world of football, aside from someone getting hurt, cheating is probably the biggest deal. Now I'll grant you that Kevin Everett is by far a much more important story, but there's only so much to it: We all wish him and his family the best and we love hearing the improving updates, but it pretty much ends at that. It's a wait and see thing with him, because we can't hurry his recovery. However, there are still many unknowns about CameraGate... as much as you would love it to only be about Sept 9th, 2007, we're all wondering about February 3, 2002, February 4, 2004 and February 6, 2005 and a few other important dates.

Finally, you know what? You're right. Just like every Redskins fan, you and we both knew that Norv Turner would sink San Diego's up-and-coming ship. And it seems to be happening. But let's assume for a second that next year the Chargers go 11-5 and win the Super Bowl. And then 2 years later they win it again, and then the following year they win it yet again. All of them by 3 points and all of them with Norv Turner at the helm. And let's say that about 6 years from now, they find out that Norv Turner had allowed his defensive coordinator to steal an opposing teams playbook, in a week 1 matchup. Wouldn't it make you at least wonder a bit? Wouldn't you think back to today, when Norv is a punchline to a coaching joke?

You see, thats what we are all facing. Bill Belichick, was once Norv Turner, a hapless, go-nowhere coach and now he's headed to Canton. Just a little bit weird... don't you think?

NFL Week 2: Redskins beat Eagles, 20-12

Last week I said I would wait until this week to see if I knock the "somewhat" off of my Redskins assessment of "Somewhat intrigued." Well, I'm not doing it. I'm still only "somewhat intrigued."

The Bad: Jason Campbell overthrew a wide open Santana Moss on a sure touchdown, which would have sealed the game. The defensive line gets no pressure on the quarterback, their sacks this week were all essentially coverage sacks. They did not force any turnovers. The Skins were helped by terrible passes and even worse play calling.

The Good: Just about everything else Jason Campbell did. The Redskins beat a conference opponent on the road... and not in overtime. The Redskins gave up no touchdowns and have given up only one touchdown in two games. The secondary played much better than last year week.

So it stays at "somewhat intrigued." Now if the Skins could get a good pass rush we'll start talking, because I'm not too worried about most of the other stuff.

NFL: Patriots Cheating Games

(Don't you just love cheesy headlines like that?)

I haven't write much about the NFL this season mostly because I wasn't all that excited about the Redskins prospects this year and after their first game, I'm still not exactly excited. I'm somewhat intrigued, but definitely not excited. We'll have to wait until after Monday night's game to see if I remove the "somewhat" from that statement.

Anyways, what prompted me to write was the news that the New England Patriots cheated in their game against the New York Jets last weekend. Well, not exactly. What actually prompted me to write was this ESPN article written by a couple of Pats fans, who happen to also be sports writers.

In case you want to save yourself from reading their pitiful, excuse-laden banter, here is their response/excuses in a nutshell:

1. Their advantage from cheating was minor
2. Everyone, past and present, cheats

Well, excuse the rest of us for questioning the situation. Yes, we should all just assume that this and the Green Bay game were the only ones in which the Pats cheated. Oh and we shouldn't worry because they were blowouts anyways, so there was no real advantage. Sorry, I just don't think that makes any sense.

The response to the first point is quite obvious: the Pats margin of winning, and essentially superiority, was also minor. Each of their Super Bowls was won by a margin of 3 points, 2 of them on last second field goals. In their Super Bowl runs, aside from games against the Colts and a rookie quarterback (Ben Roethlisberger), they have never won a playoff game by more than 7 points. Is anyone going to claim that this kind of cheating isn't worth a lone touchdown?

The quick response to the second point is fairly simple: Not everyone is stealing signals and using radios on defense. So when the teams that has won 3 of the last 6 Super Bowls is caught cheating it makes you wonder. Besides, no one cares if the losers are cheating as long as the winners aren't cheating. That's why they put the emphasis on testing the top finishers in most sports (Olympics, cycling, horse racing, etc).

Their other sporadic points are also easy to answer:

If they caught Tampa Bay doing this, would people be suggesting that the Bucs' 2002 championship was tainted?

Ummm... YES! Of course!

if you're videotaping an opponent's signals, common sense dictates this advantage couldn't be realized until the second half of a game, following a halftime in which these signals would be broken down the same way you'd break down a country's radio frequency during a war or something.

Why would anyone wait until halftime to "break down" the signals? Do you think Belichick is doing the "decoding" himself? Also, don't you think that teams reuse codes? NFL players aren't computers. Steal them once and it's very likely that they'll use them again next time you play them. In fact, I think the reason the Pats were doing it this time WAS for their next game. The Jets probably changed signals and they needed to learn the new ones.

If we're going to stick an asterisk next to the '01, '03 and '04 Pats, don't stop there -- it needs to extend to Elway's Broncos (cap cheaters), DeBartolo's Niners (cap cheaters), the '90s Cowboys (drugs and hookers), the '86 Giants (coke), the '85 Bears (Tony Eason was on the other team), the '70s Steelers (steroids) and pretty much everyone who ever won a Super Bowl.

I can't speak specifically about the '70s Steelers and Jim Haslett (who is brought up later admitting to steroid use), but mentioning steroids is a weak excuse because it's an individual thing. You'll always have a few players on every team cheating (Shawne Merriman and Herm Edwards), but stealing signals and using radios on defense (notice they didn't mention that) is an advantage for the entire team.

The Tony Eason comment is obviously a joke but "drugs, hookers and coke" is also a joke. Those things are certainly stupid and illegal but they're not cheating.

Cap cheating is another matter. As Aaron Schatz states, it's probably the best analogy. But Schatz even says it himself: "However, fiddling with the salary cap didn't hand them the championship." To a certain extent I agree, especially considering the Broncos won their Super Bowls by more than 3 points each. But, there is a big difference between fiddling with the salary cap (which every team does to a certain extent) and signal stealing and using radios on defense (which most teams don't seem to be doing).

You see that's where the problem lies, the Pats were cheating, doing things most teams didn't do AND they were winning by close margins. You seem to think it is jealousy and "hatred" but it's nothing more than "testing" the winners because they won. It just aggravates the situation considering they won by so little of a margin. In this case, it feels like if they cheated in the playoffs and Super Bowls it would certainly have "handed them" at least 2 of the 3 championships. Is there anything wrong with looking back to see if there was evidence of cheating at the Super Bowl?

About what should be done, I just don't know at this point. The NFL should investigate and disclose to fans what was found, but I doubt that's going to happen. But there is a hope that this won't just get brushed under the carpet, because Roger Goodell has been cracking down on players, so why should it stop there? I disagree that they should be banned from post season for 2 years for the same reason as stated in the article (You're essentially telling a large group of fans to stop watching for two years), but I also disagree that this is in the past and "there's nothing we can do about it." For the losers of those games maybe there isn't, but for the integrity of the game taking away Super Bowl and Conference title trophies is an option.

Until now, I have, without reservation, considered the Pats a dynasty. Certainly not an intimidating and dominating dynasty, but a dynasty nonetheless. So to use the same words as Bill Simmons when he questioned Game 3 of Spurs-Suns series in 2007 NBA playoffs that was refereed by Tim Donaghy: "Now? I'm not so sure."