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."
No comments:
Post a Comment