PDA

View Full Version : McKinnie Met with Commish



aaeyers
05-31-2008, 05:40 PM
From PFT:

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/05/31/mckinnie-meets-with-commish/


A league source tells us that Vikings left tackle Bryant McKinnie met with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on Friday.

dcboardr41
05-31-2008, 05:47 PM
i still dont see him gettin suspended for more than 2 games this season

gregair13
05-31-2008, 07:00 PM
i hope he didnt bring his pipe with him

marstc09
05-31-2008, 07:02 PM
There’s a chance that McKinnie will be entered into a diversion program at a June 20 hearing, which would defer prosecution (and ultimately dismiss the charges) if McKinnie meets certain conditions.
(Such as, for example, not bashing anyone else in the head with a pole.
Allegedly.)

I like the sound of this. How can Roger suspend him without any charges? Doesn't seem fair.

dcboardr41
05-31-2008, 07:06 PM
"marstc09" wrote:



There’s a chance that McKinnie will be entered into a diversion program at a June 20 hearing, which would defer prosecution (and ultimately dismiss the charges) if McKinnie meets certain conditions.
(Such as, for example, not bashing anyone else in the head with a pole.
Allegedly.)

I like the sound of this. How can Roger suspend him without any charges? Doesn't seem fair.


because he got in trouble multiple times, with or without charges it doesnt matter, hes a bad boy, and needs to go in the corner lol

Chazz
05-31-2008, 09:21 PM
"marstc09" wrote:



There’s a chance that McKinnie will be entered into a diversion program at a June 20 hearing, which would defer prosecution (and ultimately dismiss the charges) if McKinnie meets certain conditions.
(Such as, for example, not bashing anyone else in the head with a pole.
Allegedly.)

I like the sound of this. How can Roger suspend him without any charges? Doesn't seem fair.



Pacman got suspended with no convictions.

marstc09
05-31-2008, 09:24 PM
"Chazz" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:



There’s a chance that McKinnie will be entered into a diversion program at a June 20 hearing, which would defer prosecution (and ultimately dismiss the charges) if McKinnie meets certain conditions.
(Such as, for example, not bashing anyone else in the head with a pole.
Allegedly.)

I like the sound of this. How can Roger suspend him without any charges? Doesn't seem fair.



Pacman got suspended with no convictions.


That is also not fair.

Garland Greene
06-01-2008, 12:01 AM
The story on McKinnie (http://ww3.startribune.com/vikingsblog/?p=1624)

singersp
06-01-2008, 07:11 AM
"marstc09" wrote:



There’s a chance that McKinnie will be entered into a diversion program at a June 20 hearing, which would defer prosecution (and ultimately dismiss the charges) if McKinnie meets certain conditions.
(Such as, for example, not bashing anyone else in the head with a pole.
Allegedly.)

I like the sound of this. How can Roger suspend him without any charges? Doesn't seem fair.



No matter what happens in the legal system, McKinnie could face a possible fine or suspension from the NFL because he is a repeat offender of the league’s personal conduct policy.

If witnesses say McKinnie was involved in a brawl outside an establishment the cops told him not to go back to, the cops saw McKinnie brawling outside the establishment & the cops arrested him for brawling outside the establishment, chances are about 100% that McKinnie was brawling outside the establishment whether charges are dropped or not.

The diversion agreement doesn't change the fact that he was involved in a brawl, it just gets the charges dropped for lighter sentencing.

singersp
06-01-2008, 07:34 AM
Minnesota Scene: McKinnie meets with commissioner (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/19429094.html)

By STAFF and WIRE REPORTS
startribune.com

Last update: June 1, 2008 - 2:01 AM


With the NFL considering disciplinary action against Bryant McKinnie, Commissioner Roger Goodell met Friday with the Vikings left tackle....

singersp
06-01-2008, 07:36 AM
Minnesota Vikings' Bryant McKinnie meets with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell (http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_9440869?nclick_check=1)

By Don Seeholzer
dseeholzer@pioneerpress.com
twincities.com

Article Last Updated: 06/01/2008 12:20:31 AM CDT


Bryant McKinnie has made his case to the NFL's head disciplinarian, but the Vikings offensive tackle's status with the league remains uncertain....

NordicNed
06-01-2008, 08:23 AM
Lets just hope the meeting went well and I really hope he gets on of the programs offered to him in court.



Time this boy wakes up and acts like a man....


Did I say that?
;D

PurpleTide
06-02-2008, 07:17 AM
If Mckinnie gets his diversion program, Goodell still knows this is the forth time Bryant has been involved in mischief. Quote "No matter what happens in the legal system, McKinnie could face a possible fine or suspension from the NFL because he is a repeat offender of the league’s personal conduct policy." I atleast expect a two game suspension, which really kinda hurts the team.

NodakPaul
06-02-2008, 04:18 PM
"PurpleTide" wrote:



If Mckinnie gets his diversion program, Goodell still knows this is the forth time Bryant has been involved in mischief. Quote "No matter what happens in the legal system, McKinnie could face a possible fine or suspension from the NFL because he is a repeat offender of the league’s personal conduct policy." I atleast expect a two game suspension, which really kinda hurts the team.


I expect a four game suspension, and demand a two game suspension.
Will it hurt the Vikings, most likely.
But I fully support Goodell taking the hard line with people who think that they are more important than the game.

It is hard to gauge how long, since there is really no good precedent.
PacMan and Vick are obviously extreme examples.
Even Tank (suspended for 8 games) has a parole violation and weapons charges.
McKinnie has some charges looming, but they are not as severe as Tank's, and they may be dropped through the diversion program.
I think that four is a fairly reasonable number.
The same number of games someone gets suspended for a substance abuse violation.

cajunvike
06-02-2008, 04:22 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"PurpleTide" wrote:



If Mckinnie gets his diversion program, Goodell still knows this is the forth time Bryant has been involved in mischief. Quote "No matter what happens in the legal system, McKinnie could face a possible fine or suspension from the NFL because he is a repeat offender of the league’s personal conduct policy." I atleast expect a two game suspension, which really kinda hurts the team.


I expect a four game suspension, and demand a two game suspension.
Will it hurt the Vikings, most likely.
But I fully support Goodell taking the hard line with people who think that they are more important than the game.

It is hard to gauge how long, since there is really no good precedent.
PacMan and Vick are obviously extreme examples.
Even Tank (suspended for 8 games) has a parole violation and weapons charges.
McKinnie has some charges looming, but they are not as severe as Tank's, and they may be dropped through the diversion program.
I think that four is a fairly reasonable number.
The same number of games someone gets suspended for a substance abuse violation.


I support a hardline attitude as well...for players, as well as coaches.
Oh wait, he already messed that one up.

NodakPaul
06-02-2008, 04:30 PM
"cajunvike" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"PurpleTide" wrote:



If Mckinnie gets his diversion program, Goodell still knows this is the forth time Bryant has been involved in mischief. Quote "No matter what happens in the legal system, McKinnie could face a possible fine or suspension from the NFL because he is a repeat offender of the league’s personal conduct policy." I atleast expect a two game suspension, which really kinda hurts the team.


I expect a four game suspension, and demand a two game suspension.
Will it hurt the Vikings, most likely.
But I fully support Goodell taking the hard line with people who think that they are more important than the game.

It is hard to gauge how long, since there is really no good precedent.
PacMan and Vick are obviously extreme examples.
Even Tank (suspended for 8 games) has a parole violation and weapons charges.
McKinnie has some charges looming, but they are not as severe as Tank's, and they may be dropped through the diversion program.
I think that four is a fairly reasonable number.
The same number of games someone gets suspended for a substance abuse violation.


I support a hardline attitude as well...for players, as well as coaches.
Oh wait, he already messed that one up.


LOL.
Right, he only handed Belichick and the Pats a punishment unprecedented in the NFL in severity... :)

Anyway, my point is that I supported the hard line attitude when it was with players of different teams.
It would be hypocritical of me not to do so with McKinnie.

cajunvike
06-02-2008, 04:35 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"cajunvike" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"PurpleTide" wrote:



If Mckinnie gets his diversion program, Goodell still knows this is the forth time Bryant has been involved in mischief. Quote "No matter what happens in the legal system, McKinnie could face a possible fine or suspension from the NFL because he is a repeat offender of the league’s personal conduct policy." I atleast expect a two game suspension, which really kinda hurts the team.


I expect a four game suspension, and demand a two game suspension.
Will it hurt the Vikings, most likely.
But I fully support Goodell taking the hard line with people who think that they are more important than the game.

It is hard to gauge how long, since there is really no good precedent.
PacMan and Vick are obviously extreme examples.
Even Tank (suspended for 8 games) has a parole violation and weapons charges.
McKinnie has some charges looming, but they are not as severe as Tank's, and they may be dropped through the diversion program.
I think that four is a fairly reasonable number.
The same number of games someone gets suspended for a substance abuse violation.


I support a hardline attitude as well...for players, as well as coaches.
Oh wait, he already messed that one up.


LOL.
Right, he only handed Belichick and the Pats a punishment unprecedented in the NFL in severity... :)

Anyway, my point is that I supported the hard line attitude when it was with players of different teams.
It would be hypocritical of me not to do so with McKinnie.


I'm talking suspension-wise...not money.

marstc09
06-02-2008, 04:37 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:



There’s a chance that McKinnie will be entered into a diversion program at a June 20 hearing, which would defer prosecution (and ultimately dismiss the charges) if McKinnie meets certain conditions.
(Such as, for example, not bashing anyone else in the head with a pole.
Allegedly.)

I like the sound of this. How can Roger suspend him without any charges? Doesn't seem fair.



No matter what happens in the legal system, McKinnie could face a possible fine or suspension from the NFL because he is a repeat offender of the league’s personal conduct policy.

If witnesses say McKinnie was involved in a brawl outside an establishment the cops told him not to go back to, the cops saw McKinnie brawling outside the establishment & the cops arrested him for brawling outside the establishment, chances are about 100% that McKinnie was brawling outside the establishment whether charges are dropped or not.

The diversion agreement doesn't change the fact that he was involved in a brawl, it just gets the charges dropped for lighter sentencing.


Innocent until proven guilty.

C Mac D
06-02-2008, 04:48 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


LOL.
Right, he only handed Belichick and the Pats a punishment unprecedented in the NFL in severity... :)



Hahaha, a $750,000 fine for 7 years of cheating and 3 Super Bowl victories? You think that's a "unprecedented" punishment? Sounds like a wise investment for the Pats... as Matt Walsh said, they'd probably pay it again.

Please, that was a slap on the wrist... no one was even suspended for a game.

NodakPaul
06-02-2008, 04:55 PM
"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


LOL.
Right, he only handed Belichick and the Pats a punishment unprecedented in the NFL in severity... :)



Hahaha, a $750,000 fine for 7 years of cheating and 3 Super Bowl victories? You think that's a "unprecedented" punishment? Sounds like a wise investment for the Pats... as Matt Walsh said, they'd probably pay it again.

Please, that was a slap on the wrist... no one was even suspended for a game.



First of all, unprecedented means that it has no precedent in the NFL, which it did not.
Second, your conspiracy theories about it helping them win three super bowls are just that - conspiracy theories.
Third, there is another thread in which this discussion has been hashed over and over again, no need to drag it into this one. ;)

(Like how I put my 2 cents in before trying to get the thread back on track? ;))

Anyway, back to McKinnie, I still say that 4 games is fair given the relatively small sample of precedent.

C Mac D
06-02-2008, 04:58 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


LOL.
Right, he only handed Belichick and the Pats a punishment unprecedented in the NFL in severity... :)



Hahaha, a $750,000 fine for 7 years of cheating and 3 Super Bowl victories? You think that's a "unprecedented" punishment? Sounds like a wise investment for the Pats... as Matt Walsh said, they'd probably pay it again.

Please, that was a slap on the wrist... no one was even suspended for a game.



First of all, unprecedented means that it has no precedent in the NFL, which it did not.
Second, your conspiracy theories about it helping them win three super bowls are just that - conspiracy theories. Third, there is another thread in which this discussion has been hashed over and over again, no need to drag it into this one. ;)

(Like how I put my 2 cents in before trying to get the thread back on track? ;))

Anyway, back to McKinnie, I still say that 4 games is fair given the relatively small sample of precedent.


Haha, ok... I guess we'll see. I'd say Matt Walsh had some very interesting things to say in his interviews... not really sure why he'd lie.

Also, if you really believe that Belichick "Misinterpreted" the rules, I just feel sorry for you. Go back to sleep.

NodakPaul
06-02-2008, 05:03 PM
"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


LOL.
Right, he only handed Belichick and the Pats a punishment unprecedented in the NFL in severity... :)



Hahaha, a $750,000 fine for 7 years of cheating and 3 Super Bowl victories? You think that's a "unprecedented" punishment? Sounds like a wise investment for the Pats... as Matt Walsh said, they'd probably pay it again.

Please, that was a slap on the wrist... no one was even suspended for a game.



First of all, unprecedented means that it has no precedent in the NFL, which it did not.
Second, your conspiracy theories about it helping them win three super bowls are just that - conspiracy theories. Third, there is another thread in which this discussion has been hashed over and over again, no need to drag it into this one. ;)

(Like how I put my 2 cents in before trying to get the thread back on track? ;))

Anyway, back to McKinnie, I still say that 4 games is fair given the relatively small sample of precedent.


Haha, ok... I guess we'll see. I'd say Matt Walsh had some very interesting things to say in his interviews... not really sure why he'd lie.

Also, if you really believe that Belichick "Misinterpreted" the rules, I just feel sorry for you. Go back to sleep.


Dammit, you're not allowed to get the last word - unless you inject something about the actual thread topic.
Like this:

Nobody believes that Belickick misinterpreted anything.
He was 100% in the know that what he was doing was wrong, and he was doing it to obtain a strategic advantage.
However, the impact of this strategic advantage is not nearly as great as some would like us to believe.
Suspending Belichick for video taping from the sidelines is akin to divorcing your wife because she ate the last of the cake in the fridge and then lied about it.
Was it right? NO.
Was it so bad that it warranted a moe severe punishment? NO.

But back to McKinnie, I really don't have much else to add.
I keep saying that I expect a four game suspension, and nobody seems to want to challenge that.
I will add that if he gets off without any suspension, then I will lose all faith in Goodell.

;D

C Mac D
06-02-2008, 05:06 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


Nobody believes that Belickick misinterpreted anything.
He was 100% in the know that what he was doing was wrong, and he was doing it to obtain a strategic advantage.
However, the impact of this strategic advantage is not nearly as great as some would like us to believe.
Suspending Belichick for video taping from the sidelines is akin to divorcing your wife because she ate the last of the cake in the fridge and then lied about it.
Was it right? NO.
Was it so bad that it warranted a moe severe punishment? NO.


Actually, if you were to watch the interview with Matt Walsh, he explains the process in MUCH more detail... written "excuses" to tell if he were to ever get caught videotaping... how they RELAYED THE INFORMATION DOWN TO THE COACHES SO THEY COULD MAKE IN GAME ADJUSTMENTS... so, you can get mad at me as you want, but I think I'll believe someone who is in 4 team photos with Bill Belichick over you... sorry Nodak.

cajunvike
06-02-2008, 05:08 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


LOL.
Right, he only handed Belichick and the Pats a punishment unprecedented in the NFL in severity... :)



Hahaha, a $750,000 fine for 7 years of cheating and 3 Super Bowl victories? You think that's a "unprecedented" punishment? Sounds like a wise investment for the Pats... as Matt Walsh said, they'd probably pay it again.

Please, that was a slap on the wrist... no one was even suspended for a game.



First of all, unprecedented means that it has no precedent in the NFL, which it did not.
Second, your conspiracy theories about it helping them win three super bowls are just that - conspiracy theories. Third, there is another thread in which this discussion has been hashed over and over again, no need to drag it into this one. ;)

(Like how I put my 2 cents in before trying to get the thread back on track? ;))

Anyway, back to McKinnie, I still say that 4 games is fair given the relatively small sample of precedent.


Haha, ok... I guess we'll see. I'd say Matt Walsh had some very interesting things to say in his interviews... not really sure why he'd lie.

Also, if you really believe that Belichick "Misinterpreted" the rules, I just feel sorry for you. Go back to sleep.


Dammit, you're not allowed to get the last word - unless you inject something about the actual thread topic.
Like this:

Nobody believes that Belickick misinterpreted anything.
He was 100% in the know that what he was doing was wrong, and he was doing it to obtain a strategic advantage.
However, the impact of this strategic advantage is not nearly as great as some would like us to believe.
Suspending Belichick for video taping from the sidelines is akin to divorcing your wife because she ate the last of the cake in the fridge and then lied about it.
Was it right? NO.
Was it so bad that it warranted a moe severe punishment? NO.

But back to McKinnie, I really don't have much else to add.
I keep saying that I expect a four game suspension, and nobody seems to want to challenge that.
I will add that if he gets off without any suspension, then I will lose all faith in Goodell.

;D


I've already lost all faith in Goodell...so I vote for the NO game suspension for McKinnie.

NodakPaul
06-02-2008, 05:29 PM
"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


Nobody believes that Belickick misinterpreted anything.
He was 100% in the know that what he was doing was wrong, and he was doing it to obtain a strategic advantage.
However, the impact of this strategic advantage is not nearly as great as some would like us to believe.
Suspending Belichick for video taping from the sidelines is akin to divorcing your wife because she ate the last of the cake in the fridge and then lied about it.
Was it right? NO.
Was it so bad that it warranted a moe severe punishment? NO.


Actually, if you were to watch the interview with Matt Walsh, he explains the process in MUCH more detail... written "excuses" to tell if he were to ever get caught videotaping... how they RELAYED THE INFORMATION DOWN TO THE COACHES SO THEY COULD MAKE IN GAME ADJUSTMENTS... so, you can get mad at me as you want, but I think I'll believe someone who is in 4 team photos with Bill Belichick over you... sorry Nodak.


Oh BS.
Walsh is attention whoring.
I read the interviews, and the only time he talks about passing information down to the coordinators was when he supposedly saw another cameraman from a different team doing the same thing as him.
Please provide me a single link where he said anything about relaying the information down to the coaches so they could make in game adjustments.
I never saw a single one.
And anything he saw that he relayed could be done without video tapes anyway - it isn't illegal to have someone in that exact spot with binoculars.

The team photos don't mean squat.
Walsh was a low ranking video tech.
He is about as qualified as I am to analyze defensive signals on the fly or to advise NFL coaches and coordinators on in game adjustments.

Stipulating that Walsh is the reason that the Pats have posted winning records, or that it had anything to do with their super bowl wins, actually hurts your case more than it helps.
It exposes your predisposition to the situation, and shows that you cannot look at it objectively.
The realistic way to look at it is that it offered a slight advantage, more so in the long term against teams they played repeatedly than any tame the face only once.
Anything beyond that is simply grasping.
It may be true, but the odds are stacked against it.


Ever notice that none of the other owners or coaches complained about the punishment (or lack thereof).
Maybe that's because they understand that actual significance (or lack thereof) of the act itself.

C Mac D
06-02-2008, 05:37 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


Nobody believes that Belickick misinterpreted anything.
He was 100% in the know that what he was doing was wrong, and he was doing it to obtain a strategic advantage.
However, the impact of this strategic advantage is not nearly as great as some would like us to believe.
Suspending Belichick for video taping from the sidelines is akin to divorcing your wife because she ate the last of the cake in the fridge and then lied about it.
Was it right? NO.
Was it so bad that it warranted a moe severe punishment? NO.


Actually, if you were to watch the interview with Matt Walsh, he explains the process in MUCH more detail... written "excuses" to tell if he were to ever get caught videotaping... how they RELAYED THE INFORMATION DOWN TO THE COACHES SO THEY COULD MAKE IN GAME ADJUSTMENTS... so, you can get mad at me as you want, but I think I'll believe someone who is in 4 team photos with Bill Belichick over you... sorry Nodak.


Oh BS.
Walsh is attention whoring.
I read the interviews, and the only time he talks about passing information down to the coordinators was when he supposedly saw another cameraman from a different team doing the same thing as him.
Please provide me a single link where he said anything about relaying the information down to the coaches so they could make in game adjustments.
I never saw a single one.
And anything he saw that he relayed could be done without video tapes anyway - it isn't illegal to have someone in that exact spot with binoculars.

The team photos don't mean squat.
Walsh was a low ranking video tech.
He is about as qualified as I am to analyze defensive signals on the fly or to advise NFL coaches and coordinators on in game adjustments.

Stipulating that Walsh is the reason that the Pats have posted winning records, or that it had anything to do with their super bowl wins, actually hurts your case more than it helps.
It exposes your predisposition to the situation, and shows that you cannot look at it objectively.
The realistic way to look at it is that it offered a slight advantage, more so in the long term against teams they played repeatedly than any tame the face only once.
Anything beyond that is simply grasping.
It may be true, but the odds are stacked against it.


Ever notice that none of the other owners or coaches complained about the punishment (or lack thereof).
Maybe that's because they understand that actual significance (or lack thereof) of the act itself.


Haha, ok... cheating to gain a competitive advantage is ok... gotcha. I mean, hell... everyone does it. Right?

Hmmm....

You may have read the interview (however, by the sound of it.... I have a feeling your preconceived notions about what happened are blocking you from making unbiased conclusions regarding this) but I suggest watching the interview. Read Walsh's expressions and his recounts of what happened. You might be surprised.

All respect, I like you Nodak... but you look like a fool when you have to come up with so many reasons to defend cheating. Reasons like, "I'm tired of hearing about this" and "Everyone cheats" are truly... truly... pathetic reasons for letting this blatant disregard for the rules go, pretty much, unchecked.

Your words exactly:

it offered a slight advantage

THAT'S CHEATING!!!!

C Mac D
06-02-2008, 05:43 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


And anything he saw that he relayed could be done without video tapes anyway - it isn't illegal to have someone in that exact spot with binoculars.


That's terrific... but they used video-cameras.

C Mac D
06-02-2008, 05:43 PM
McKinnie... no suspension

dcboardr41
06-02-2008, 05:47 PM
this thread isnt off topic at all

Mr Anderson
06-02-2008, 06:03 PM
It is literally impossible to analyze signals and gain an advantage in the same game, it would take Rain Man at least quarter, and that's only if Rain Man knows what happens on the field after the signal itself is called.

How to gain an advantage by filming defensive signals in game: by Mr Anderson.
1) Have Matt Walsh, or whoever your 3rd video assistant is, film the defensive coach sending in the signals.
2) Analyze each signal and figure out what signal means what.(this will take at least a quarter or two)
3) Play the game.




a) Send your offense out on the field with a play.




b) Use your acquired defensive signals to determine the defense called, which will most definitely change before the ball is snapped due to the offensive formation.








1) Send the information to the offensive coordinator.








2) Have the offensive coordinator to the head coach.(1 and 2 can be reversed based on radio comm to QB)








3) Have the head coach send the information to the quarterback on the field.








4) Have the quarterback audible in response to the information received.
c) Try not to have delay of game called on you.

In practices and walkthroughs, generally, it's all about offense. Defense is hard to walk through with.

Defense is reactionary.

You can gameplan for offense, but I dare any defensive coordinator to script his first 15 defensive plays, and not get scored on, probably more than once.


I've been saying this all along throughout spygate they are not , which would not even be a story anymore if it wasn't for ESPN and Arlen Specter, they like the ratings they get from this story.

The Patriots gained nothing from these films. Even if they did, it wasn't enough to win games for them. They were the superior team, and still are. All of this Patriot hate has nothing behind it. It's like why people hate(d) the Yankees, because they win(won) all the time.

Using the signals they filmed would be about as affective as throwing darts at a board with a list of defensive formations on it and basing the offense on that.
[hr]

Now, back to McKinnie.

NodakPaul
06-02-2008, 06:05 PM
"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


Nobody believes that Belickick misinterpreted anything.
He was 100% in the know that what he was doing was wrong, and he was doing it to obtain a strategic advantage.
However, the impact of this strategic advantage is not nearly as great as some would like us to believe.
Suspending Belichick for video taping from the sidelines is akin to divorcing your wife because she ate the last of the cake in the fridge and then lied about it.
Was it right? NO.
Was it so bad that it warranted a moe severe punishment? NO.


Actually, if you were to watch the interview with Matt Walsh, he explains the process in MUCH more detail... written "excuses" to tell if he were to ever get caught videotaping... how they RELAYED THE INFORMATION DOWN TO THE COACHES SO THEY COULD MAKE IN GAME ADJUSTMENTS... so, you can get mad at me as you want, but I think I'll believe someone who is in 4 team photos with Bill Belichick over you... sorry Nodak.


Oh BS.
Walsh is attention whoring.
I read the interviews, and the only time he talks about passing information down to the coordinators was when he supposedly saw another cameraman from a different team doing the same thing as him.
Please provide me a single link where he said anything about relaying the information down to the coaches so they could make in game adjustments.
I never saw a single one.
And anything he saw that he relayed could be done without video tapes anyway - it isn't illegal to have someone in that exact spot with binoculars.

The team photos don't mean squat.
Walsh was a low ranking video tech.
He is about as qualified as I am to analyze defensive signals on the fly or to advise NFL coaches and coordinators on in game adjustments.

Stipulating that Walsh is the reason that the Pats have posted winning records, or that it had anything to do with their super bowl wins, actually hurts your case more than it helps.
It exposes your predisposition to the situation, and shows that you cannot look at it objectively.
The realistic way to look at it is that it offered a slight advantage, more so in the long term against teams they played repeatedly than any tame the face only once.
Anything beyond that is simply grasping.
It may be true, but the odds are stacked against it.


Ever notice that none of the other owners or coaches complained about the punishment (or lack thereof).
Maybe that's because they understand that actual significance (or lack thereof) of the act itself.


Haha, ok... cheating to gain a competitive advantage is ok... gotcha. I mean, hell... everyone does it. Right?

Hmmm....

You may have read the interview (however, by the sound of it.... I have a feeling your preconceived notions about what happened are blocking you from making unbiased conclusions regarding this) but I suggest watching the interview. Read Walsh's expressions and his recounts of what happened. You might be surprised.

All respect, I like you Nodak... but you look like a fool when you have to come up with so many reasons to defend cheating. Reasons like, "I'm tired of hearing about this" and "Everyone cheats" are truly... truly... pathetic reasons for letting this blatant disregard for the rules go, pretty much, unchecked.

Your words exactly:

it offered a slight advantage

THAT'S CHEATING!!!!


Yes, it was cheating.
Yes, they deserved to be punished.
I do not condone nor defend it.
If you actually read any of my argument you would see that I time and time again agree that Belichick was cheating and deserved to be punished.
I never said that it was alright.
I never said that it was excusable because it was widespread.
I especially think that he was arrogant considering the fact that the coaches were warned about this exact thing right before this happened.

Do I think the punishment should have been more severe?
Actually yes, but not to the point of suspension.
Do I think that it was the reason they have three super bowl wins? Not at all.
That is going off the deep end.
I said it gave them a slight advantage because it did.
To put it into context, I think that a player using steroids offers a much larger advantage.

The punishment should fit the crime.
Just because you don't particularly like Belichick doesn't mean that the punishment should be unreasonable severe.

BTW, how can you justify no suspension for McKinnie when you want Belichick to be burned at the stake?

C Mac D
06-02-2008, 06:11 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


BTW, how can you justify no suspension for McKinnie when you want Belichick to be burned at the stake?


Purple Shades...

EDIT: Honest answer, it had nothing to do with the game of football or the outcomes of the games... it was an outside-the-NFL incident... not the worst known case of cheating in NFL history.

Purple Floyd
06-02-2008, 06:13 PM
"Mr" wrote:


It is literally impossible to analyze signals and gain an advantage in the same game, it would take Rain Man at least quarter, and that's only if Rain Man knows what happens on the field after the signal itself is called.

How to gain an advantage by filming defensive signals in game: by Mr Anderson.
1) Have Matt Walsh, or whoever your 3rd video assistant is, film the defensive coach sending in the signals.
2) Analyze each signal and figure out what signal means what.(this will take at least a quarter or two)
3) Play the game.




a) Send your offense out on the field with a play.




b) Use your acquired defensive signals to determine the defense called, which will most definitely change before the ball is snapped due to the offensive formation.








1) Send the information to the offensive coordinator.








2) Have the offensive coordinator to the head coach.(1 and 2 can be reversed based on radio comm to QB)








3) Have the head coach send the information to the quarterback on the field.








4) Have the quarterback audible in response to the information received.
c) Try not to have delay of game called on you.

In practices and walkthroughs, generally, it's all about offense. Defense is hard to walk through with.

Defense is reactionary.

You can gameplan for offense, but I dare any defensive coordinator to script his first 15 defensive plays, and not get scored on, probably more than once.


I've been saying this all along throughout spygate they are not , which would not even be a story anymore if it wasn't for ESPN and Arlen Specter, they like the ratings they get from this story.

The Patriots gained nothing from these films. Even if they did, it wasn't enough to win games for them. They were the superior team, and still are. All of this Patriot hate has nothing behind it. It's like why people hate(d) the Yankees, because they win(won) all the time.

Using the signals they filmed would be about as affective as throwing darts at a board with a list of defensive formations on it and basing the offense on that.
[hr]

Now, back to McKinnie.





+1. Maybe +1.5.

MaxVike
06-02-2008, 06:27 PM
"marstc09" wrote:


"Chazz" wrote:


"marstc09" wrote:



There’s a chance that McKinnie will be entered into a diversion program at a June 20 hearing, which would defer prosecution (and ultimately dismiss the charges) if McKinnie meets certain conditions.
(Such as, for example, not bashing anyone else in the head with a pole.
Allegedly.)

I like the sound of this. How can Roger suspend him without any charges? Doesn't seem fair.



Pacman got suspended with no convictions.


That is also not fair.


It is not a matter of what's fair.
Unfortunately, it's a matter of enforcing an NFL Policy.
Unfortunately, our starting LT is a repeat conduct offender and is up on charges for felonies.
I would say it sucks...if it was my kid, I'd take her car away.
These guys make more money than most CEO's of large corporations...enforcing a Code of Conduct is well within reason.

cajunvike
06-02-2008, 06:48 PM
"Mr" wrote:


It is literally impossible to analyze signals and gain an advantage in the same game, it would take Rain Man at least quarter, and that's only if Rain Man knows what happens on the field after the signal itself is called.

How to gain an advantage by filming defensive signals in game: by Mr Anderson.
1) Have Matt Walsh, or whoever your 3rd video assistant is, film the defensive coach sending in the signals.
2) Analyze each signal and figure out what signal means what.(this will take at least a quarter or two)
3) Play the game.




a) Send your offense out on the field with a play.




b) Use your acquired defensive signals to determine the defense called, which will most definitely change before the ball is snapped due to the offensive formation.








1) Send the information to the offensive coordinator.








2) Have the offensive coordinator to the head coach.(1 and 2 can be reversed based on radio comm to QB)








3) Have the head coach send the information to the quarterback on the field.








4) Have the quarterback audible in response to the information received.
c) Try not to have delay of game called on you.

In practices and walkthroughs, generally, it's all about offense. Defense is hard to walk through with.

Defense is reactionary.

You can gameplan for offense, but I dare any defensive coordinator to script his first 15 defensive plays, and not get scored on, probably more than once.


I've been saying this all along throughout spygate they are not , which would not even be a story anymore if it wasn't for ESPN and Arlen Specter, they like the ratings they get from this story.

The Patriots gained nothing from these films. Even if they did, it wasn't enough to win games for them. They were the superior team, and still are. All of this Patriot hate has nothing behind it. It's like why people hate(d) the Yankees, because they win(won) all the time.

Using the signals they filmed would be about as affective as throwing darts at a board with a list of defensive formations on it and basing the offense on that.
[hr]

Now, back to McKinnie.




Just because you FAIL at gaining an advantage by cheating doesn't eliminate the attempt to cheat.

cajunvike
06-02-2008, 06:51 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


Nobody believes that Belickick misinterpreted anything.
He was 100% in the know that what he was doing was wrong, and he was doing it to obtain a strategic advantage.
However, the impact of this strategic advantage is not nearly as great as some would like us to believe.
Suspending Belichick for video taping from the sidelines is akin to divorcing your wife because she ate the last of the cake in the fridge and then lied about it.
Was it right? NO.
Was it so bad that it warranted a moe severe punishment? NO.


Actually, if you were to watch the interview with Matt Walsh, he explains the process in MUCH more detail... written "excuses" to tell if he were to ever get caught videotaping... how they RELAYED THE INFORMATION DOWN TO THE COACHES SO THEY COULD MAKE IN GAME ADJUSTMENTS... so, you can get mad at me as you want, but I think I'll believe someone who is in 4 team photos with Bill Belichick over you... sorry Nodak.


Oh BS.
Walsh is attention whoring.
I read the interviews, and the only time he talks about passing information down to the coordinators was when he supposedly saw another cameraman from a different team doing the same thing as him.
Please provide me a single link where he said anything about relaying the information down to the coaches so they could make in game adjustments.
I never saw a single one.
And anything he saw that he relayed could be done without video tapes anyway - it isn't illegal to have someone in that exact spot with binoculars.

The team photos don't mean squat.
Walsh was a low ranking video tech.
He is about as qualified as I am to analyze defensive signals on the fly or to advise NFL coaches and coordinators on in game adjustments.

Stipulating that Walsh is the reason that the Pats have posted winning records, or that it had anything to do with their super bowl wins, actually hurts your case more than it helps.
It exposes your predisposition to the situation, and shows that you cannot look at it objectively.
The realistic way to look at it is that it offered a slight advantage, more so in the long term against teams they played repeatedly than any tame the face only once.
Anything beyond that is simply grasping.
It may be true, but the odds are stacked against it.


Ever notice that none of the other owners or coaches complained about the punishment (or lack thereof).
Maybe that's because they understand that actual significance (or lack thereof) of the act itself.


Haha, ok... cheating to gain a competitive advantage is ok... gotcha. I mean, hell... everyone does it. Right?

Hmmm....

You may have read the interview (however, by the sound of it.... I have a feeling your preconceived notions about what happened are blocking you from making unbiased conclusions regarding this) but I suggest watching the interview. Read Walsh's expressions and his recounts of what happened. You might be surprised.

All respect, I like you Nodak... but you look like a fool when you have to come up with so many reasons to defend cheating. Reasons like, "I'm tired of hearing about this" and "Everyone cheats" are truly... truly... pathetic reasons for letting this blatant disregard for the rules go, pretty much, unchecked.

Your words exactly:

it offered a slight advantage

THAT'S CHEATING!!!!


Yes, it was cheating.
Yes, they deserved to be punished.
I do not condone nor defend it.
If you actually read any of my argument you would see that I time and time again agree that Belichick was cheating and deserved to be punished.
I never said that it was alright.
I never said that it was excusable because it was widespread.
I especially think that he was arrogant considering the fact that the coaches were warned about this exact thing right before this happened.

Do I think the punishment should have been more severe?
Actually yes, but not to the point of suspension.
Do I think that it was the reason they have three super bowl wins? Not at all.
That is going off the deep end.
I said it gave them a slight advantage because it did.
To put it into context, I think that a player using steroids offers a much larger advantage.

The punishment should fit the crime.
Just because you don't particularly like Belichick doesn't mean that the punishment should be unreasonable severe.

BTW, how can you justify no suspension for McKinnie when you want Belichick to be burned at the stake?


No burning at the stake...either fines for all or suspensions for all.
Thousand dollar fines don't hurt a multi-billion dollar organization....they are a joke.

jmcdon00
06-02-2008, 06:54 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


It is literally impossible to analyze signals and gain an advantage in the same game, it would take Rain Man at least quarter, and that's only if Rain Man knows what happens on the field after the signal itself is called.

How to gain an advantage by filming defensive signals in game: by Mr Anderson.
1) Have Matt Walsh, or whoever your 3rd video assistant is, film the defensive coach sending in the signals.
2) Analyze each signal and figure out what signal means what.(this will take at least a quarter or two)
3) Play the game.




a) Send your offense out on the field with a play.




b) Use your acquired defensive signals to determine the defense called, which will most definitely change before the ball is snapped due to the offensive formation.








1) Send the information to the offensive coordinator.








2) Have the offensive coordinator to the head coach.(1 and 2 can be reversed based on radio comm to QB)








3) Have the head coach send the information to the quarterback on the field.








4) Have the quarterback audible in response to the information received.
c) Try not to have delay of game called on you.

In practices and walkthroughs, generally, it's all about offense. Defense is hard to walk through with.

Defense is reactionary.

You can gameplan for offense, but I dare any defensive coordinator to script his first 15 defensive plays, and not get scored on, probably more than once.


I've been saying this all along throughout spygate they are not , which would not even be a story anymore if it wasn't for ESPN and Arlen Specter, they like the ratings they get from this story.

The Patriots gained nothing from these films. Even if they did, it wasn't enough to win games for them. They were the superior team, and still are. All of this Patriot hate has nothing behind it. It's like why people hate(d) the Yankees, because they win(won) all the time.

Using the signals they filmed would be about as affective as throwing darts at a board with a list of defensive formations on it and basing the offense on that.
[hr]

Now, back to McKinnie.





+1. Maybe +1.5.



The big question though is if it doesn't help why did they do it? It wasn't like they tried it realized it didn't work and moved on. They did it for several years. I think most would argree that they knew what they were doing was against the rules(if you believe anything Walsh said) so why would they risk getting caught?

I agree that the Patriots were/are a hell of a football team. But football is a game of inches. If all the hundred of hours of illegal tape they had to study teams from helped them get 1 first down or get 1 three and out that could be all they need to get to or win a superbowl. I believe they won a couple of huge games by a last second field goal. It wasn't like they won every game by 30 points so a slight advantage would have no effect on the outcome, a slight advantage is the difference between winning and losing in the nfl.
Your logic assumes that they could only use the tapes for the current game but in reality they play all of their division rivals twice a season, so if they tape the first meeting they would have a couple of months to analyze the tapes before the next game(not to mention future seasons and playoffs). It could be very subtle things that the patriots used.

Schutz
06-02-2008, 06:59 PM
I think someone should change the title, they accidentally put Mckinnie in the title instead of the Patriots.
::)

cajunvike
06-02-2008, 07:01 PM
"Schutz" wrote:


I think someone should change the title, they accidentally put Mckinnie in the title instead of the Patriots.
::)


Send a PM to aaeyers...he can do it.

dcboardr41
06-02-2008, 07:17 PM
DA COMMISH!!!!

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh215/dcboardr41/6a00d83451c7bb69e200e54f27682e8833-.jpg

Mr Anderson
06-02-2008, 07:46 PM
"jmcdon00" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


It is literally impossible to analyze signals and gain an advantage in the same game, it would take Rain Man at least quarter, and that's only if Rain Man knows what happens on the field after the signal itself is called.

How to gain an advantage by filming defensive signals in game: by Mr Anderson.
1) Have Matt Walsh, or whoever your 3rd video assistant is, film the defensive coach sending in the signals.
2) Analyze each signal and figure out what signal means what.(this will take at least a quarter or two)
3) Play the game.




a) Send your offense out on the field with a play.




b) Use your acquired defensive signals to determine the defense called, which will most definitely change before the ball is snapped due to the offensive formation.








1) Send the information to the offensive coordinator.








2) Have the offensive coordinator to the head coach.(1 and 2 can be reversed based on radio comm to QB)








3) Have the head coach send the information to the quarterback on the field.








4) Have the quarterback audible in response to the information received.
c) Try not to have delay of game called on you.

In practices and walkthroughs, generally, it's all about offense. Defense is hard to walk through with.

Defense is reactionary.

You can gameplan for offense, but I dare any defensive coordinator to script his first 15 defensive plays, and not get scored on, probably more than once.


I've been saying this all along throughout spygate they are not , which would not even be a story anymore if it wasn't for ESPN and Arlen Specter, they like the ratings they get from this story.

The Patriots gained nothing from these films. Even if they did, it wasn't enough to win games for them. They were the superior team, and still are. All of this Patriot hate has nothing behind it. It's like why people hate(d) the Yankees, because they win(won) all the time.

Using the signals they filmed would be about as affective as throwing darts at a board with a list of defensive formations on it and basing the offense on that.
[hr]

Now, back to McKinnie.





+1. Maybe +1.5.



The big question though is if it doesn't help why did they do it? It wasn't like they tried it realized it didn't work and moved on. They did it for several years. I think most would argree that they knew what they were doing was against the rules(if you believe anything Walsh said) so why would they risk getting caught?

I agree that the Patriots were/are a hell of a football team. But football is a game of inches. If all the hundred of hours of illegal tape they had to study teams from helped them get 1 first down or get 1 three and out that could be all they need to get to or win a superbowl. I believe they won a couple of huge games by a last second field goal. It wasn't like they won every game by 30 points so a slight advantage would have no effect on the outcome, a slight advantage is the difference between winning and losing in the nfl.
Your logic assumes that they could only use the tapes for the current game but in reality they play all of their division rivals twice a season, so if they tape the first meeting they would have a couple of months to analyze the tapes before the next game(not to mention future seasons and playoffs). It could be very subtle things that the patriots used.


I don't disagree with what you say here jmc, and you're correct, football is a game of inches, and the Super Bowls they won were obviously against non-division opponents, and they still got there, however, if anyone wants to debate that maybe they wouldn't be there had it not been for their filming, I say/reiterate these two things:

One: Even if you are playing a division opponent for the second time that season, you must take the time at the tail-end of the play clock to analyze the signal from the defensive coordinator to the field, send that information through your series of channels between the cameraman and the quarterback, and apply it before time expires. IMO this is basically impossible.

Two:

Defense is reactionary. What comes out on the field is in response to, down, distance, prior plays, the offense's strengths and weaknesses, personnel, and patterns/consistencies. The defense reacts to what you do.

You can gain the same knowledge of the opposing defense by watching the field of play(as opposed to the coach calling the signals). Your defensive coaches, and offensive coaches, and most players for that matter can point out what kind of defense they're in.

The only thing I can think of that could be effected are blitzes and defensive line stunts, but those come from two separate coaches. Again, the cameraman must do his job and send the signal sent from coach to players to he offensive coordinator, or whoever, upstairs must remember each signal means, or have it front of him, so he'd have to look it up and take even more time. Meanwhile, he's doing his real job of calling plays/running the offense, and the offense must be changed before the play begins.

And I think on most plays the quarterback assumes the worst, that the blitz is coming, you always see linebackers fake blitz, so they would be playing the same whether the blitz is coming or not. They must use the same checks and make the same reads. Mentally, I don't think it makes a difference if the quarterback knows if the blitz is coming or not. And with this filming system they used, they were probably wrong, or accomplished nothing on 95+% of plays anyway, so the blitz signals are shaky at best.

Honestly, I don't think the Patriots gained enough through this filming to gain an advantage, even in the game of inches that is football.

And why filming defensive coaches is illegal, I don't know. You can do the same exact thing with binoculars, a pen, and paper and gain just as big(or little) in this case of an advantage.

"cajunvike" wrote:


Just because you FAIL at gaining an advantage by cheating doesn't eliminate the attempt to cheat.


I don't disagree that Belichick & Co. should have been punished. However, I disagree with the removal of a first round draft pick. I believe that is worse than suspending the head coach for a game, or any monetary fine. Not only are you taking millions out of the pocket of an innocent incoming player, in this case, Phillip Merling, but you're punishing the team's roster. It's a team game, you rely on your teammates to do your job, and taking away a starting player(barring a bust) from a team's roster is too harsh of punishment.

I'm officially done with spygate, forever... maybe.
[hr]
To get this back on track again, McKinnie needs to learn his lesson, he should be suspended. I don't want him to be, but he should be. He's a prior offender, albeit in the previous Conduct Policy, so his former actions can not be used against him directly, like increasing suspensions, but will be taken into consideration in assessing a punishment. If that sounds confusing I'll put it another way.

If this was his first offense, under any conduct policy, he might not get suspended for this. But because he does have priors, they will take them into consideration.

NodakPaul
06-02-2008, 08:20 PM
"Mr" wrote:


To get this back on track again, McKinnie needs to learn his lesson, he should be suspended. I don't want him to be, but he should be. He's a prior offender, albeit in the previous Conduct Policy, so his former actions can not be used against him directly, like increasing suspensions, but will be taken into consideration in assessing a punishment. If that sounds confusing I'll put it another way.

If this was his first offense, under any conduct policy, he might not get suspended for this. But because he does have priors, they will take them into consideration.


+1

(I agreed with all the other stuff too, but but it out to get the thread back on track)

singersp
06-02-2008, 08:32 PM
"Mr" wrote:



I don't disagree that Belichick & Co. should have been punished. However, I disagree with the removal of a first round draft pick. I believe that is worse than suspending the head coach for a game, or any monetary fine. Not only are you taking millions out of the pocket of an innocent incoming player, in this case, Phillip Merling, but you're punishing the team's roster. It's a team game, you rely on your teammates to do your job, and taking away a starting player(barring a bust) from a team's roster is too harsh of punishment.



LOL! How in God's name did you come up with Merling losing millions of dollars because of the Patriots? Just because he was picked 1st in the 2nd round?

Has it ever occurred to you that it might have made him money? Had the Patriots had their other first round pick, Merling could have easily been picked 33rd instead of 32nd.

Phillip Merling got picked 32nd because of Phillip Merling. If he was a better player he could have been snatched at any earlier spot in the draft.

dcboardr41
06-02-2008, 08:36 PM
"singersp" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:



I don't disagree that Belichick & Co. should have been punished. However, I disagree with the removal of a first round draft pick. I believe that is worse than suspending the head coach for a game, or any monetary fine. Not only are you taking millions out of the pocket of an innocent incoming player, in this case, Phillip Merling, but you're punishing the team's roster. It's a team game, you rely on your teammates to do your job, and taking away a starting player(barring a bust) from a team's roster is too harsh of punishment.



LOL! How in God's name did you come up with Merling losing millions of dollars because of the Patriots? Just because he was picked 1st in the 2nd round?

Has it ever occurred to you that it might have made him money? Had the Patriots had their other first round pick, Merling could have easily been picked 33rd instead of 32nd.

Phillip Merling got picked 32nd because of Phillip Merling. If he was a better player he could have been snatched at any earlier spot in the draft.


good point singer, we will never know if NE would have taken him at 32, i doubt it, so u cant say he is losing money because of it

Purple Floyd
06-02-2008, 10:55 PM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


To get this back on track again, McKinnie needs to learn his lesson, he should be suspended. I don't want him to be, but he should be. He's a prior offender, albeit in the previous Conduct Policy, so his former actions can not be used against him directly, like increasing suspensions, but will be taken into consideration in assessing a punishment. If that sounds confusing I'll put it another way.

If this was his first offense, under any conduct policy, he might not get suspended for this. But because he does have priors, they will take them into consideration.


+1

(I agreed with all the other stuff too, but but it out to get the thread back on track)


Ditto.

Chazz
06-02-2008, 11:22 PM
"Mr" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


It is literally impossible to analyze signals and gain an advantage in the same game, it would take Rain Man at least quarter, and that's only if Rain Man knows what happens on the field after the signal itself is called.

How to gain an advantage by filming defensive signals in game: by Mr Anderson.
1) Have Matt Walsh, or whoever your 3rd video assistant is, film the defensive coach sending in the signals.
2) Analyze each signal and figure out what signal means what.(this will take at least a quarter or two)
3) Play the game.




a) Send your offense out on the field with a play.




b) Use your acquired defensive signals to determine the defense called, which will most definitely change before the ball is snapped due to the offensive formation.








1) Send the information to the offensive coordinator.








2) Have the offensive coordinator to the head coach.(1 and 2 can be reversed based on radio comm to QB)








3) Have the head coach send the information to the quarterback on the field.








4) Have the quarterback audible in response to the information received.
c) Try not to have delay of game called on you.

In practices and walkthroughs, generally, it's all about offense. Defense is hard to walk through with.

Defense is reactionary.

You can gameplan for offense, but I dare any defensive coordinator to script his first 15 defensive plays, and not get scored on, probably more than once.


I've been saying this all along throughout spygate they are not , which would not even be a story anymore if it wasn't for ESPN and Arlen Specter, they like the ratings they get from this story.

The Patriots gained nothing from these films. Even if they did, it wasn't enough to win games for them. They were the superior team, and still are. All of this Patriot hate has nothing behind it. It's like why people hate(d) the Yankees, because they win(won) all the time.

Using the signals they filmed would be about as affective as throwing darts at a board with a list of defensive formations on it and basing the offense on that.
[hr]

Now, back to McKinnie.





+1. Maybe +1.5.



The big question though is if it doesn't help why did they do it? It wasn't like they tried it realized it didn't work and moved on. They did it for several years. I think most would argree that they knew what they were doing was against the rules(if you believe anything Walsh said) so why would they risk getting caught?

I agree that the Patriots were/are a hell of a football team. But football is a game of inches. If all the hundred of hours of illegal tape they had to study teams from helped them get 1 first down or get 1 three and out that could be all they need to get to or win a superbowl. I believe they won a couple of huge games by a last second field goal. It wasn't like they won every game by 30 points so a slight advantage would have no effect on the outcome, a slight advantage is the difference between winning and losing in the nfl.
Your logic assumes that they could only use the tapes for the current game but in reality they play all of their division rivals twice a season, so if they tape the first meeting they would have a couple of months to analyze the tapes before the next game(not to mention future seasons and playoffs). It could be very subtle things that the patriots used.


I don't disagree with what you say here jmc, and you're correct, football is a game of inches, and the Super Bowls they won were obviously against non-division opponents, and they still got there, however, if anyone wants to debate that maybe they wouldn't be there had it not been for their filming, I say/reiterate these two things:

One: Even if you are playing a division opponent for the second time that season, you must take the time at the tail-end of the play clock to analyze the signal from the defensive coordinator to the field, send that information through your series of channels between the cameraman and the quarterback, and apply it before time expires. IMO this is basically impossible.

Two:

Defense is reactionary. What comes out on the field is in response to, down, distance, prior plays, the offense's strengths and weaknesses, personnel, and patterns/consistencies. The defense reacts to what you do.

You can gain the same knowledge of the opposing defense by watching the field of play(as opposed to the coach calling the signals). Your defensive coaches, and offensive coaches, and most players for that matter can point out what kind of defense they're in.

The only thing I can think of that could be effected are blitzes and defensive line stunts, but those come from two separate coaches. Again, the cameraman must do his job and send the signal sent from coach to players to he offensive coordinator, or whoever, upstairs must remember each signal means, or have it front of him, so he'd have to look it up and take even more time. Meanwhile, he's doing his real job of calling plays/running the offense, and the offense must be changed before the play begins.

And I think on most plays the quarterback assumes the worst, that the blitz is coming, you always see linebackers fake blitz, so they would be playing the same whether the blitz is coming or not. They must use the same checks and make the same reads. Mentally, I don't think it makes a difference if the quarterback knows if the blitz is coming or not. And with this filming system they used, they were probably wrong, or accomplished nothing on 95+% of plays anyway, so the blitz signals are shaky at best.

Honestly, I don't think the Patriots gained enough through this filming to gain an advantage, even in the game of inches that is football.

And why filming defensive coaches is illegal, I don't know. You can do the same exact thing with binoculars, a pen, and paper and gain just as big(or little) in this case of an advantage.

"cajunvike" wrote:


Just because you FAIL at gaining an advantage by cheating doesn't eliminate the attempt to cheat.


I don't disagree that Belichick & Co. should have been punished. However, I disagree with the removal of a first round draft pick. I believe that is worse than suspending the head coach for a game, or any monetary fine. Not only are you taking millions out of the pocket of an innocent incoming player, in this case, Phillip Merling, but you're punishing the team's roster. It's a team game, you rely on your teammates to do your job, and taking away a starting player(barring a bust) from a team's roster is too harsh of punishment.

I'm officially done with spygate, forever... maybe.
[hr]
To get this back on track again, McKinnie needs to learn his lesson, he should be suspended. I don't want him to be, but he should be. He's a prior offender, albeit in the previous Conduct Policy, so his former actions can not be used against him directly, like increasing suspensions, but will be taken into consideration in assessing a punishment. If that sounds confusing I'll put it another way.

If this was his first offense, under any conduct policy, he might not get suspended for this. But because he does have priors, they will take them into consideration.


You don't cheat if it gains you nothing. Thats just nonsense to think that. That would mean that they gained nothing, yet still risked everything. That is just dumb. There are many things I believe Belicheck is, dumb is not one of them.

As to Mckinnie....not only should he get suspended, he very much deserves it. I will actually be upset if he doesn't. I have a friend who served 14 months for aggravated assult, Mckinnie will unlikely spend a day. Anything he gets will mild in comparison to what the average person would get.

cajunvike
06-03-2008, 12:09 AM
"Chazz" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


It is literally impossible to analyze signals and gain an advantage in the same game, it would take Rain Man at least quarter, and that's only if Rain Man knows what happens on the field after the signal itself is called.

How to gain an advantage by filming defensive signals in game: by Mr Anderson.
1) Have Matt Walsh, or whoever your 3rd video assistant is, film the defensive coach sending in the signals.
2) Analyze each signal and figure out what signal means what.(this will take at least a quarter or two)
3) Play the game.




a) Send your offense out on the field with a play.




b) Use your acquired defensive signals to determine the defense called, which will most definitely change before the ball is snapped due to the offensive formation.








1) Send the information to the offensive coordinator.








2) Have the offensive coordinator to the head coach.(1 and 2 can be reversed based on radio comm to QB)








3) Have the head coach send the information to the quarterback on the field.








4) Have the quarterback audible in response to the information received.
c) Try not to have delay of game called on you.

In practices and walkthroughs, generally, it's all about offense. Defense is hard to walk through with.

Defense is reactionary.

You can gameplan for offense, but I dare any defensive coordinator to script his first 15 defensive plays, and not get scored on, probably more than once.


I've been saying this all along throughout spygate they are not , which would not even be a story anymore if it wasn't for ESPN and Arlen Specter, they like the ratings they get from this story.

The Patriots gained nothing from these films. Even if they did, it wasn't enough to win games for them. They were the superior team, and still are. All of this Patriot hate has nothing behind it. It's like why people hate(d) the Yankees, because they win(won) all the time.

Using the signals they filmed would be about as affective as throwing darts at a board with a list of defensive formations on it and basing the offense on that.
[hr]

Now, back to McKinnie.





+1. Maybe +1.5.



The big question though is if it doesn't help why did they do it? It wasn't like they tried it realized it didn't work and moved on. They did it for several years. I think most would argree that they knew what they were doing was against the rules(if you believe anything Walsh said) so why would they risk getting caught?

I agree that the Patriots were/are a hell of a football team. But football is a game of inches. If all the hundred of hours of illegal tape they had to study teams from helped them get 1 first down or get 1 three and out that could be all they need to get to or win a superbowl. I believe they won a couple of huge games by a last second field goal. It wasn't like they won every game by 30 points so a slight advantage would have no effect on the outcome, a slight advantage is the difference between winning and losing in the nfl.
Your logic assumes that they could only use the tapes for the current game but in reality they play all of their division rivals twice a season, so if they tape the first meeting they would have a couple of months to analyze the tapes before the next game(not to mention future seasons and playoffs). It could be very subtle things that the patriots used.


I don't disagree with what you say here jmc, and you're correct, football is a game of inches, and the Super Bowls they won were obviously against non-division opponents, and they still got there, however, if anyone wants to debate that maybe they wouldn't be there had it not been for their filming, I say/reiterate these two things:

One: Even if you are playing a division opponent for the second time that season, you must take the time at the tail-end of the play clock to analyze the signal from the defensive coordinator to the field, send that information through your series of channels between the cameraman and the quarterback, and apply it before time expires. IMO this is basically impossible.

Two:

Defense is reactionary. What comes out on the field is in response to, down, distance, prior plays, the offense's strengths and weaknesses, personnel, and patterns/consistencies. The defense reacts to what you do.

You can gain the same knowledge of the opposing defense by watching the field of play(as opposed to the coach calling the signals). Your defensive coaches, and offensive coaches, and most players for that matter can point out what kind of defense they're in.

The only thing I can think of that could be effected are blitzes and defensive line stunts, but those come from two separate coaches. Again, the cameraman must do his job and send the signal sent from coach to players to he offensive coordinator, or whoever, upstairs must remember each signal means, or have it front of him, so he'd have to look it up and take even more time. Meanwhile, he's doing his real job of calling plays/running the offense, and the offense must be changed before the play begins.

And I think on most plays the quarterback assumes the worst, that the blitz is coming, you always see linebackers fake blitz, so they would be playing the same whether the blitz is coming or not. They must use the same checks and make the same reads. Mentally, I don't think it makes a difference if the quarterback knows if the blitz is coming or not. And with this filming system they used, they were probably wrong, or accomplished nothing on 95+% of plays anyway, so the blitz signals are shaky at best.

Honestly, I don't think the Patriots gained enough through this filming to gain an advantage, even in the game of inches that is football.

And why filming defensive coaches is illegal, I don't know. You can do the same exact thing with binoculars, a pen, and paper and gain just as big(or little) in this case of an advantage.

"cajunvike" wrote:


Just because you FAIL at gaining an advantage by cheating doesn't eliminate the attempt to cheat.


I don't disagree that Belichick & Co. should have been punished. However, I disagree with the removal of a first round draft pick. I believe that is worse than suspending the head coach for a game, or any monetary fine. Not only are you taking millions out of the pocket of an innocent incoming player, in this case, Phillip Merling, but you're punishing the team's roster. It's a team game, you rely on your teammates to do your job, and taking away a starting player(barring a bust) from a team's roster is too harsh of punishment.

I'm officially done with spygate, forever... maybe.
[hr]
To get this back on track again, McKinnie needs to learn his lesson, he should be suspended. I don't want him to be, but he should be. He's a prior offender, albeit in the previous Conduct Policy, so his former actions can not be used against him directly, like increasing suspensions, but will be taken into consideration in assessing a punishment. If that sounds confusing I'll put it another way.

If this was his first offense, under any conduct policy, he might not get suspended for this. But because he does have priors, they will take them into consideration.


You don't cheat if it gains you nothing. Thats just nonsense to think that. That would mean that they gained nothing, yet still risked everything. That is just dumb. There are many things I believe Belicheck is, dumb is not one of them.

As to Mckinnie....not only should he get suspended, he very much deserves it. I will actually be upset if he doesn't. I have a friend who served 14 months for aggravated assult, Mckinnie will unlikely spend a day. Anything he gets will mild in comparison to what the average person would get.


Then obviously something was gained...because the cheating was confirmed.

As for McKinnie, he should only be fined, no suspension.
Suspend all or suspend none.

Chazz
06-03-2008, 04:01 PM
"cajunvike" wrote:


"Chazz" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:




It is literally impossible to analyze signals and gain an advantage in the same game, it would take Rain Man at least quarter, and that's only if Rain Man knows what happens on the field after the signal itself is called.

How to gain an advantage by filming defensive signals in game: by Mr Anderson.
1) Have Matt Walsh, or whoever your 3rd video assistant is, film the defensive coach sending in the signals.
2) Analyze each signal and figure out what signal means what.(this will take at least a quarter or two)
3) Play the game.




a) Send your offense out on the field with a play.




b) Use your acquired defensive signals to determine the defense called, which will most definitely change before the ball is snapped due to the offensive formation.








1) Send the information to the offensive coordinator.








2) Have the offensive coordinator to the head coach.(1 and 2 can be reversed based on radio comm to QB)








3) Have the head coach send the information to the quarterback on the field.








4) Have the quarterback audible in response to the information received.
c) Try not to have delay of game called on you.

In practices and walkthroughs, generally, it's all about offense. Defense is hard to walk through with.

Defense is reactionary.

You can gameplan for offense, but I dare any defensive coordinator to script his first 15 defensive plays, and not get scored on, probably more than once.


I've been saying this all along throughout spygate they are not , which would not even be a story anymore if it wasn't for ESPN and Arlen Specter, they like the ratings they get from this story.

The Patriots gained nothing from these films. Even if they did, it wasn't enough to win games for them. They were the superior team, and still are. All of this Patriot hate has nothing behind it. It's like why people hate(d) the Yankees, because they win(won) all the time.

Using the signals they filmed would be about as affective as throwing darts at a board with a list of defensive formations on it and basing the offense on that.
[hr]

Now, back to McKinnie.





+1. Maybe +1.5.



The big question though is if it doesn't help why did they do it? It wasn't like they tried it realized it didn't work and moved on. They did it for several years. I think most would argree that they knew what they were doing was against the rules(if you believe anything Walsh said) so why would they risk getting caught?

I agree that the Patriots were/are a hell of a football team. But football is a game of inches. If all the hundred of hours of illegal tape they had to study teams from helped them get 1 first down or get 1 three and out that could be all they need to get to or win a superbowl. I believe they won a couple of huge games by a last second field goal. It wasn't like they won every game by 30 points so a slight advantage would have no effect on the outcome, a slight advantage is the difference between winning and losing in the nfl.
Your logic assumes that they could only use the tapes for the current game but in reality they play all of their division rivals twice a season, so if they tape the first meeting they would have a couple of months to analyze the tapes before the next game(not to mention future seasons and playoffs). It could be very subtle things that the patriots used.


I don't disagree with what you say here jmc, and you're correct, football is a game of inches, and the Super Bowls they won were obviously against non-division opponents, and they still got there, however, if anyone wants to debate that maybe they wouldn't be there had it not been for their filming, I say/reiterate these two things:

One: Even if you are playing a division opponent for the second time that season, you must take the time at the tail-end of the play clock to analyze the signal from the defensive coordinator to the field, send that information through your series of channels between the cameraman and the quarterback, and apply it before time expires. IMO this is basically impossible.

Two:

Defense is reactionary. What comes out on the field is in response to, down, distance, prior plays, the offense's strengths and weaknesses, personnel, and patterns/consistencies. The defense reacts to what you do.

You can gain the same knowledge of the opposing defense by watching the field of play(as opposed to the coach calling the signals). Your defensive coaches, and offensive coaches, and most players for that matter can point out what kind of defense they're in.

The only thing I can think of that could be effected are blitzes and defensive line stunts, but those come from two separate coaches. Again, the cameraman must do his job and send the signal sent from coach to players to he offensive coordinator, or whoever, upstairs must remember each signal means, or have it front of him, so he'd have to look it up and take even more time. Meanwhile, he's doing his real job of calling plays/running the offense, and the offense must be changed before the play begins.

And I think on most plays the quarterback assumes the worst, that the blitz is coming, you always see linebackers fake blitz, so they would be playing the same whether the blitz is coming or not. They must use the same checks and make the same reads. Mentally, I don't think it makes a difference if the quarterback knows if the blitz is coming or not. And with this filming system they used, they were probably wrong, or accomplished nothing on 95+% of plays anyway, so the blitz signals are shaky at best.

Honestly, I don't think the Patriots gained enough through this filming to gain an advantage, even in the game of inches that is football.

And why filming defensive coaches is illegal, I don't know. You can do the same exact thing with binoculars, a pen, and paper and gain just as big(or little) in this case of an advantage.

"cajunvike" wrote:


Just because you FAIL at gaining an advantage by cheating doesn't eliminate the attempt to cheat.


I don't disagree that Belichick & Co. should have been punished. However, I disagree with the removal of a first round draft pick. I believe that is worse than suspending the head coach for a game, or any monetary fine. Not only are you taking millions out of the pocket of an innocent incoming player, in this case, Phillip Merling, but you're punishing the team's roster. It's a team game, you rely on your teammates to do your job, and taking away a starting player(barring a bust) from a team's roster is too harsh of punishment.

I'm officially done with spygate, forever... maybe.
[hr]
To get this back on track again, McKinnie needs to learn his lesson, he should be suspended. I don't want him to be, but he should be. He's a prior offender, albeit in the previous Conduct Policy, so his former actions can not be used against him directly, like increasing suspensions, but will be taken into consideration in assessing a punishment. If that sounds confusing I'll put it another way.

If this was his first offense, under any conduct policy, he might not get suspended for this. But because he does have priors, they will take them into consideration.


You don't cheat if it gains you nothing. Thats just nonsense to think that. That would mean that they gained nothing, yet still risked everything. That is just dumb. There are many things I believe Belicheck is, dumb is not one of them.

As to Mckinnie....not only should he get suspended, he very much deserves it. I will actually be upset if he doesn't. I have a friend who served 14 months for aggravated assult, Mckinnie will unlikely spend a day. Anything he gets will mild in comparison to what the average person would get.


Then obviously something was gained...because the cheating was confirmed.

As for McKinnie, he should only be fined, no suspension.
Suspend all or suspend none.


Agreed.

NodakPaul
06-03-2008, 08:01 PM
"Chazz" wrote:


"cajunvike" wrote:


As for McKinnie, he should only be fined, no suspension.
Suspend all or suspend none.


Agreed.


So there is no gradient in the punishments.
All rule infractions, regardless of their severity, should be met with suspension?
Wow.
Quite the black and white view...

singersp
06-04-2008, 06:57 AM
McKinnie still waiting (http://ww3.startribune.com/vikingsblog/?p=1630)

June 3rd, 2008 – 11:20 AM

by Judd Zulgad
startribune.com


Larry Kerr, the Florida-based attorney for Bryant McKinnie, said today he continues to await word on whether the state will allow the Vikings left tackle to enter a pre-trial diversion program that could lead to the dismissal of charges against his client...

PurpleTide
06-04-2008, 07:14 AM
I just wish the commish would give big Mac his penance, so we can plan for his absence and move on. At this point it doesn't matter what the court decides, it's in ol' Roger's hands and he should render his judgement so we can do what we need to do incase Big Mac is suspended a game or two.

i_bleed_purple
06-04-2008, 08:39 AM
"Mr" wrote:


"jmcdon00" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Mr" wrote:


It is literally impossible to analyze signals and gain an advantage in the same game, it would take Rain Man at least quarter, and that's only if Rain Man knows what happens on the field after the signal itself is called.

How to gain an advantage by filming defensive signals in game: by Mr Anderson.
1) Have Matt Walsh, or whoever your 3rd video assistant is, film the defensive coach sending in the signals.
2) Analyze each signal and figure out what signal means what.(this will take at least a quarter or two)
3) Play the game.




a) Send your offense out on the field with a play.




b) Use your acquired defensive signals to determine the defense called, which will most definitely change before the ball is snapped due to the offensive formation.








1) Send the information to the offensive coordinator.








2) Have the offensive coordinator to the head coach.(1 and 2 can be reversed based on radio comm to QB)








3) Have the head coach send the information to the quarterback on the field.








4) Have the quarterback audible in response to the information received.
c) Try not to have delay of game called on you.

In practices and walkthroughs, generally, it's all about offense. Defense is hard to walk through with.

Defense is reactionary.

You can gameplan for offense, but I dare any defensive coordinator to script his first 15 defensive plays, and not get scored on, probably more than once.


I've been saying this all along throughout spygate they are not , which would not even be a story anymore if it wasn't for ESPN and Arlen Specter, they like the ratings they get from this story.

The Patriots gained nothing from these films. Even if they did, it wasn't enough to win games for them. They were the superior team, and still are. All of this Patriot hate has nothing behind it. It's like why people hate(d) the Yankees, because they win(won) all the time.

Using the signals they filmed would be about as affective as throwing darts at a board with a list of defensive formations on it and basing the offense on that.
[hr]

Now, back to McKinnie.





+1. Maybe +1.5.



The big question though is if it doesn't help why did they do it? It wasn't like they tried it realized it didn't work and moved on. They did it for several years. I think most would argree that they knew what they were doing was against the rules(if you believe anything Walsh said) so why would they risk getting caught?

I agree that the Patriots were/are a hell of a football team. But football is a game of inches. If all the hundred of hours of illegal tape they had to study teams from helped them get 1 first down or get 1 three and out that could be all they need to get to or win a superbowl. I believe they won a couple of huge games by a last second field goal. It wasn't like they won every game by 30 points so a slight advantage would have no effect on the outcome, a slight advantage is the difference between winning and losing in the nfl.
Your logic assumes that they could only use the tapes for the current game but in reality they play all of their division rivals twice a season, so if they tape the first meeting they would have a couple of months to analyze the tapes before the next game(not to mention future seasons and playoffs). It could be very subtle things that the patriots used.


I don't disagree with what you say here jmc, and you're correct, football is a game of inches, and the Super Bowls they won were obviously against non-division opponents, and they still got there, however, if anyone wants to debate that maybe they wouldn't be there had it not been for their filming, I say/reiterate these two things:

One: Even if you are playing a division opponent for the second time that season, you must take the time at the tail-end of the play clock to analyze the signal from the defensive coordinator to the field, send that information through your series of channels between the cameraman and the quarterback, and apply it before time expires. IMO this is basically impossible.

Two:

Defense is reactionary. What comes out on the field is in response to, down, distance, prior plays, the offense's strengths and weaknesses, personnel, and patterns/consistencies. The defense reacts to what you do.

You can gain the same knowledge of the opposing defense by watching the field of play(as opposed to the coach calling the signals). Your defensive coaches, and offensive coaches, and most players for that matter can point out what kind of defense they're in.

The only thing I can think of that could be effected are blitzes and defensive line stunts, but those come from two separate coaches. Again, the cameraman must do his job and send the signal sent from coach to players to he offensive coordinator, or whoever, upstairs must remember each signal means, or have it front of him, so he'd have to look it up and take even more time. Meanwhile, he's doing his real job of calling plays/running the offense, and the offense must be changed before the play begins.

And I think on most plays the quarterback assumes the worst, that the blitz is coming, you always see linebackers fake blitz, so they would be playing the same whether the blitz is coming or not. They must use the same checks and make the same reads. Mentally, I don't think it makes a difference if the quarterback knows if the blitz is coming or not. And with this filming system they used, they were probably wrong, or accomplished nothing on 95+% of plays anyway, so the blitz signals are shaky at best.

Honestly, I don't think the Patriots gained enough through this filming to gain an advantage, even in the game of inches that is football.

And why filming defensive coaches is illegal, I don't know. You can do the same exact thing with binoculars, a pen, and paper and gain just as big(or little) in this case of an advantage.

"cajunvike" wrote:


Just because you FAIL at gaining an advantage by cheating doesn't eliminate the attempt to cheat.


I don't disagree that Belichick & Co. should have been punished. However, I disagree with the removal of a first round draft pick. I believe that is worse than suspending the head coach for a game, or any monetary fine. Not only are you taking millions out of the pocket of an innocent incoming player, in this case, Phillip Merling, but you're punishing the team's roster. It's a team game, you rely on your teammates to do your job, and taking away a starting player(barring a bust) from a team's roster is too harsh of punishment.

I'm officially done with spygate, forever... maybe.
[hr]
To get this back on track again, McKinnie needs to learn his lesson, he should be suspended. I don't want him to be, but he should be. He's a prior offender, albeit in the previous Conduct Policy, so his former actions can not be used against him directly, like increasing suspensions, but will be taken into consideration in assessing a punishment. If that sounds confusing I'll put it another way.

If this was his first offense, under any conduct policy, he might not get suspended for this. But because he does have priors, they will take them into consideration.


You also forgot to mention that the headset communication between a coach and a QB turns off once the play clock reaches 15 seconds I believe.
That would leave the pats 25 seconds to do all that, even less, because Defenses often don't get the play in right away.

Chazz
06-04-2008, 04:31 PM
"PurpleTide" wrote:



I just wish the commish would give big Mac his penance, so we can plan for his absence and move on. At this point it doesn't matter what the court decides, it's in ol' Roger's hands and he should render his judgement so we can do what we need to do incase Big Mac is suspended a game or two.




Really??? So if he gets sentenced to 3 years with 2 suspended, that wouldn't matter?

singersp
06-08-2008, 09:13 AM
And the starting left tackle for your 2008 Minnesota Vikings – Artis Hicks! (http://grants-tomb.blogspot.com/2008/05/and-your-starting-left-tackle-for-2008.html)

Saturday, May 31, 2008

grants-tomb.blogspot.com


It's unlikely McKinnie was meeting with the boss to discuss their alma mater's respective fight songs.

And as a player who's been in court before for off-the-field misdeeds, it would be surprising if Goodell doesn't slap some sort of suspension on McKinnie....