Skip to main content

The Patriots got off easy???

So say John Clayton on ESPN.com and Don Banks on SI.com.

By now you've heard that a Patriots assistant was caught videotaping the New York Jets' defensive signals Sunday. And that's where it gets hazy, and also easy to rationalize. I could swear I just read somewhere (though I can't find it) that the cameraman was on the Patriots' sideline. Wait, a dude on the other side of the field can see all your signs? Why does it matter if he has a video camera?

However, more recent reports say that the assistant was on the Jets' sideline. That's even worse! If you let an opponent come over to your sideline...during a home game...with a video camera...and a clear view of whoever's signaling the defensive plays...perhaps you're not sharp enough to deserve to win.

How bad is this? I'm not sure. I imagine teams try to steal signals all the time, though most of them are probably a little less brazen about it. It seems like the major issue here, from the league's standpoint, is the use of a video camera. Why that's the issue is puzzling to me, but the Patriots had already been warned about it, just like every other team. (I'm impressed with the league's ability to foresee that one of its teams would cheat so blatantly.)

Off-topic, but predictably, some of the Philadelphia Eagles are taking advantage of this golden opportunity to whine about losing the Super Bowl a few years ago. Never mind their terrifying clock "manangement" or the quarterback dry-heaving during the closing moments. (In Donovan McNabb's defense, if I was trying to bring my team back at the end of the Super Bowl, and I looked up in the huddle and saw Freddie Mitchell, I'd feel like throwing up too.)

To be fair, I can't tell if the Eagles are really whining or if this article is just reaching. I will say that the reporter's main evidence of cheating—that the Patriots were countering almost every Eagles blitz with a screen—is tenuous at best. The Eagles used to blitz on like every freaking down. It wasn't a good surprise tactic to begin with.

Anyway, the punishment is a $500,000 fine for coach Bill Belichick (a lot of money), a $250,000 fine for the Patriots (chump change to them), and draft-based punishment; specifically, the loss of a first-rounder next year "if" New England makes the playoffs.

The Patriots obviously a) broke a rule and b) were dumb enough to get caught, so they deserve a punishment. I think the first-round pick is a really steep price. (I also think half a million is steep, but I'm not sure it hurts the team any, and could even help them, if it somehow motivates Belichick more.)

The Patriots already have the Niners' first pick next year, too, so they'll get a player from the opening round regardless. That does not render the punishment meaningless, especially because the Patriots have such a good track record in the draft. I mean, if you took a first-rounder away from a team like the Raiders you'd probably be doing them a favor, because it would give them fewer chances to screw up.

But the Patriots could take someone good. A lot of draft picks don't pan out, but there are always good players available at the end of the first round. In 1999, with the last pick of the first round, the Broncos chose Al Wilson. Can you imagine if the Broncos had broken some rule, and the punishment was that Al Wilson never played a down for us? You can't tell me that's not a huge loss.

I expected the league to suspend Belichick, but they really wanted to send a message.

As Giants owner John Mara told the New York Times, "“The loss of a No. 1 draft pick is about as serious a penalty as you could impose. You could survive your coach being suspended a couple of weeks. But losing a No. 1 pick is far more devastating.”

Comments

David said…
nothing more to add, other than the fact that your previous post's title could be viewed as prophetic if you think about it in terms of the patriots debacle
John said…
I think Clayton and anyone else who suggests that the Patriots got off easy is a moron . . . huge fines and a first-rounder are unprecedented.

But what strikes me is that this doesn't seem like such a huge offense . . . teams tape each others' plays all the time, and the computer models they use to analyze their opponents' tendencies are so advanced that I can't imagine taping signs really gets them that much more . . . especially if there is no rule against posting an assistant coach to watch (but not tape) the other team's signs.

I wonder how this would play in baseball, a sport notorious for its sign stealing . . .
Anonymous said…
It was a rough penalty. But it isn't done yet. Roger is now reviewing all documents and video from New England's compound so he can decide if he should handout a stiffer punishment in addition to the fines and the draft picks.

This is what I call NFL justice
Mike said…
John: I thought of baseball as well. Of course, in that game you have an obtuse moral code that makes some kinds of cheating okay (stealing signs), some kinds worth celebrating (spitballs and other pitcher subterfuge), and some kinds both widely practiced and widely denounced (steroids).

With all of the NFL's hyper-analysis, I agree with you: why is the videotape such a weapon? No sense to me, but at least the rule is clear to everyone but Belichick.

Anonymous/Lazy Bastard Who Won't Type In His Name: I'd be really surprised if Goodell gets any incriminating video directly from the Patriots. Frankly, the accusations that opponents' headsets go out at key moments worry me more, but it feels like this storm is already blowing over...

Popular posts from this blog

National Basketball Association Finals Preview Blowout!

If you're looking for a stereotypical matchup breakdown for the NBA Finals between the Detroit Pistons and San Antonio Spurs, (Game One is tonight, 7 o'clock Mountain, ABC), you've come to the right place! Center: Ben Wallace, Pistons vs. Nazr Mohammed, Spurs Wallace might be the league's top defender, winning his third Defensive Player of the Year award this season and leading the Pistons in both blocks and steals. It's said he's an improved offensive player, but he still scores primarily on tips and wide-open dunks. "Big Ben" is horrific from the foul line, connecting on 42.8% this season. Also, his brother has taken on NBA players and can probably beat up Mohammed's brother. Mohammed has been a good fit for the Spurs since being traded from the Knicks. It appears Isiah Thomas may have finally made his first mistake as general manager in New York, as Mohammed has started every Spurs' playoff game, averaging 8.1 points to go with a solid seven...

Forget Brett Favre (*)

From my 2007 NFL season preview : Favre's not as good as he once was-who is?-but he's not the disgrace people make him out to be...I don't think he "deserves" to go out with another Lombardi or anything, but I hope he gets to leave on a good note. Oops. What a mistake. And I even knew this day was coming. Let me say that Brett Favre deserves to go down in history with whatever records he earns, so long as a giant asterisk is placed by each and every one of them. As you may have heard, Sunday's victory over the New York Giants made Favre the winningest quarterback in NFL history. I don't know what ESPN did on TV, but this record practically went unnoticed in the places I follow sports. But it's of crucial importance to me. Why? "Maybe someday down the road it will mean a lot," a typically humble Favre said after the 149th win of his career, moving past Hall of Famer [and indisputable greatest quarterback of all time] John Elway. Humble...

Did CU ever win the Pac-12?

In 2010, I bet a college buddy of mine (who longtime readers may remember as the only other contributor to Hole Punch Sports) that CU’s football team would not win the Pac-12 in the next 15 years. Guess what? It’s time for me to gloat, because I was right. Why we were doomed Back in the day, a lot of people made the argument that CU should join the Pac-12 because we’d get so much more TV money there. Of course, given college football is the answer to the question, “what if you had a sport where multiple teams were like the Yankees, and you created a whole universe of haves and have-nots?”, then yeah, you want to be aligned with some of the haves. But the question in my mind wasn’t, “will CU be better off with more money?” That’s an obvious yes. The question I asked was, will CU be any more competitive in their own conference if they’re competing against teams who are also getting more money? I couldn’t see why they would be. The mathematical angle Legend has it that Cowboys runn...