Merged all things Brady, cheating, bellicheat, etc.

[Bill Cody]

Yep! Winning the turnover battle is probably the one stat that most strongly correlates with wins in the NFL. If you win the turnover battle you win 79% of the time. The Cheats, by reducing their fumbling rates, defintely improved their chances.

Any honest person, who watches the Titans/Cheats 2009 snow game will notice something is really amiss. The Titans are fumbling all over the place while the Cheats don't fumble. Brady's taking snaps from shotgun, doing flea flickers, and has record setting day while Collins, taking snap under center, had 2-12 pass attempt.

Here's the game's highlights:
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-h...ts-59-Titans-0

Ball deflation is why the Cheats always play better late in the year when it starts getting colder. Playing with a deflated ball becomes an even bigger advantage then.

This game also indicates to me that the coaching knows very well about the ball being deflated. Calling for a flea flicker in a game like that? C'mon...

Let's bookmark this thread. There are a lot of folks invested in the idea that NE's stats are going to plummet with fully inflated balls. The fact is we're going to find out are we not? Football air pressure going forward is going to measured/protected better than Fort Knox next year.

[Strongman]

You are comparing a guy with a notoriously bad bad weather record against a guy who plays his career in New England and deals with it every year. You are also comparing a guy who has a rocket against a guy who doesn't have anywhere near the arm strength. How does it stand up against Rodgers? Another qb with a rocket arm who plays in the cold.

*The article* is comparing Brady* to the Manning because they are consider two of the best. It concluded Brady* is just great in cold weather. This was written before Deflategate though. Of course with hindsight, we can be pretty sure Brady's cold weather "greatness" is a byproduct of playing with underinflated footballs.

[better days]

Let's bookmark this thread. There are a lot of folks invested in the idea that NE's stats are going to plummet with fully inflated balls. The fact is we're going to find out are we not? Football air pressure going forward is going to measured/protected better than Fort Knox next year.

I don't think the stats will plummet next year, but I think a fully inflated ball late in the year when the weather is bad could be the difference between a win & a loss for the CHEATERS.

[Strongman]

I don't think the stats will plummet next year, but I think a fully inflated ball late in the year when the weather is bad could be the difference between a win & a loss for the CHEATERS.

I personally haven't seen anyone use the word 'plummet' myself. Fumbling is pretty unusual in a game. The worst teams average 1.9 fumbles per game. I think the Cheats' fumble rate will go up slightly to around the league average (~1) over the course of the season. But, yes I think we'll see them more in cold weather.

[CommissarSpartacus]

1. No

2. Someone with a grudge

3. No

I'll remember your questions and answer them when I feel satisfied you know what actually happened.

1. That's correct. When Belichick joined the club, videotaping opposing DC's as they wave their arms and send their signals was NOT against the rules.

2. The guy who told the league about the video-taping had no grudge as far as I know. In fact, the guy OWED HIS CAREER to Bill Belichick, the guy he screwed.

And that would be Eric Mangini, ex-Belichick protege and brand new Jet's HC.

3. If no, then you must consider the rule-change to be patently unfair in that it legislates against something that was thought of by ONE team and not thought of by THIRTY-ONE teams. Correct?

[CommissarSpartacus]

I would like to give it a shot.

1. Yes based on location of filming

2. Mangina

3. Depends on if you think breaking the rules is a team being more intelligent than the other. Or are you refering to techniques like the ineligible receiver stuff?

1. Incorrect. There was no rule against it anywhere.

2. Correct, so you can imagine what Belichick thought about it.

3. You got 1. wrong and since this answer depends on 1. being correct, your answer is irrelevant.

[feldspar]

I'll remember your questions and answer them when I feel satisfied you know what actually happened.

What a smug little **** you truly are.

[YardRat]

Since yardie speciali2es in insinuations, it's hard sometimes to respond to his posts because his hints won't make sense unless you've followed the conversation.

In this instance, I was asked why the Patriots suspended the two locker room guys if they didn't think they were guilty.

I answered "Because the league told them to".

Then yardie objected with the above post because it was announced publicly that the Patriots had made the decision. I pointed out that the league's insistence that they could not be reinstated without the NFL's permission showed it was the league's move. Of course yardie whined because it takes logic and reason to come to that conclusion, and if there's one thing the haters want to avoid in this attempted lynching, and that's logic and reason.

Well, too bad for the haters and too bad for yardie...once again...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...equest-of-nfl/

Patriots suspended Jastremski, McNally at request of NFL
Posted by Mike Florio on May 19, 2015, 7:10 AM EDT

On the surface, the news from Adam Schefter of ESPN that the Patriots suspended John Jastremski and Jim McNally because the NFL requested the discipline makes plenty of sense. At a deeper level, the timing is curious — and it possibly becomes the first tangible evidence that winter is ending.

With the Patriots previously tight lipped on the topic of why they suspended their in-house equivalents of Beavis and Butthead, it’s fair to surmise that the news of the real reason for their suspension without pay was leaked to Schefter by the league.

...more...


https://www.facebook.com/AdamSchefte...57919684260673

Adam Schefter
2 hrs ·

For those asking why Patriots suspended two employees if those two did nothing wrong, as New England claims: NFL asked Pats to suspend them prior to discipline being handed down, per a league source in New York. New England obliged with the NFL's request.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAA!

Florio and Schefter reporting 'news' from 'unnamed league sources'. What a hoot.

[mightysimi]

1. Incorrect. There was no rule against it anywhere.

2. Correct, so you can imagine what Belichick thought about it.

3. You got 1. wrong and since this answer depends on 1. being correct, your answer is irrelevant.

What specifically do you mean about being more intelligent then? Recording to get an advantage because there was no rule?

[mightysimi]

NFL's rules state that "no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game" and that all video shooting locations for coaching purposes "must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."
In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

http://www.boston.com/sports/article...eam/?page=full

That looks to me that there was a rule in place about the location you can film from.

[CommissarSpartacus]

What specifically do you mean about being more intelligent then? Recording to get an advantage because there was no rule?

Videotape is just a recording device, a modern version of pen and paper. They had the bright idea to record the actions of the DC, which were in full view of tens of thousands of people, to analy2e at a later date, just like notes in a pad. Nothing nefarious about it. The only thing that was objectionable was that none of the other teams thought of doing it.

When this legitimate corporate secret was disclosed by Mangini, the other teams freaked, not because it was in any way against the rules, or even the SPIRIT of the rules, as it was always a given in the league that if you wanted to wave at your guys from the sideline, it was well within the other team's purview to try to figure out what those signals mean.

No, they freaked because they hadn't thought of it and the Pats had a 5 year jump on everyone else, even if they did decide to start doing it too.

So, the obvious solution to 31 teams was to ban the practice and make the Pats give up their whole database to be destroyed.

If you were Bill Belichick, wouldn't YOU think you'd been screwed just because you were smarter than everyone else?

[CommissarSpartacus]

http://www.boston.com/sports/article...eam/?page=full

That looks to me that there was a rule in place about the location you can film from.

Yes, that was the rule put in in reaction to Mangini's disclosure. The taping started in 2000 when Belichick arrived and there was no rule about it until Mangini took the Jets HC job.

[mightysimi]

You sure? The article indicates that the rule existed and the memo was sent to refresh everyone on the content. Do you have a link that shows that this rule was adopted after they were caught?

[CommissarSpartacus]

You sure? The article indicates that the rule existed and the memo was sent to refresh everyone on the content. Do you have a link that shows that this rule was adopted after they were caught?

When Spygate occurred, I wrote about it extensively both here and at Patsfan.com and I asked everyone who argued with me to produce the rule that preceded the rule put in place after Mangini complained to the league.

No one could.

[mightysimi]

When Spygate occurred, I wrote about it extensively both here and at Patsfan.com and I asked everyone who argued with me to produce the rule that preceded the rule put in place after Mangini complained to the league.

No one could.

I will look around but not sure I would be able to find anything either. Do you suggest that the writer of the article is lying when he said there is an article in place and that a league memo went out to teams telling them not to do what the Patriots were caught doing on Sep 9, 2007?

[mightysimi]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package..._DOCUMENTS.pdf

OK here is what I found. It is not easy to locate the NFL Game operations manual or more specifically The policy manual for member clubs Vol II: Game Operations.

This link only shows the changes that were included in the 2007 version and the page that indicates no recording can happen on the field during the game. In this there shows nothing in the changes for the 2007 policy that indicate anything to do with video so it looks like it was there before 2007.

Also in the section is a part about video recording that teams will need 4,400 tapes for the upcoming 2007 season for the NFL's recording requirements. That part stands to reason that this was at least available to the teams prior to the start of the 2007 season.

So on 9 Sep 2007 they indeed break a rule that was in place. As for the recordings earlier than that, I can't confirm when that was added so I don't have anything there.

[YardRat]

I already did once, apparently it was ignored or hoped to be overlooked...it's in the Constitution and Bylaws, from the merger.

http://www.nfl.com/static/content/pu...rs/pdf/co_.pdf

Article IX, Section C, Part 14.

[CommissarSpartacus]

I will look around but not sure I would be able to find anything either. Do you suggest that the writer of the article is lying when he said there is an article in place and that a league memo went out to teams telling them not to do what the Patriots were caught doing on Sep 9, 2007?

At the time he wrote the article there WAS a rule in place, as there was when the Pats called out the league by sticking the camera on the sideline. That was the rule they put into place in 2006 when Mangini did his weasel routine. But there was NO RULE about it until then.

[mightysimi]

At the time he wrote the article there WAS a rule in place, as there was when the Pats called out the league by sticking the camera on the sideline. That was the rule they put into place in 2006 when Mangini did his weasel routine. But there was NO RULE about it until then.

Right but there was a rule in 2007 and a memo sent to the teams in 2006. They were caught after that. I doesn't matter what happened before. The rule existed and they broke it knowingly.

[CommissarSpartacus]

I already did once, apparently it was ignored or hoped to be overlooked...it's in the Constitution and Bylaws, from the merger.

http://www.nfl.com/static/content/pu...rs/pdf/co_.pdf

Article IX, Section C, Part 14.

Thank you for proving my point.

I'm SURE someone as astute as yourself couldn't fail to notice the title page where it said "Rev, 2006."

The Mangini Rule...