They can NEVER take it away! (Or can they?)
I remember Bobby Hamilton walking off the field after upsetting the Rams in 2001 yelling "Only we believed in us! We're world champs now, can't take that away!" Or can they? Though I correctly anticipated that the sports media would overreact, I hadn't considered what the players would say:
Steelers WR Hines Ward claims that in the 2001 and 2004 AFC championship games, "They knew a lot of our calls. There’s no question some of their players were calling out some of our stuff."
And some Eagles implied that some weird stuff happened in Super Bowl XXXIX.
Bullshit. I hate that the door is open for other people to try and take away the excitement of those championships. And it's my opinion that Ward in particular knows what he's saying is crap, but understands that he has an opportunity to stick it to the Pats in their weakened state.
Unfortunately, I can no longer defend the Pats' credibility, nor can I state with any certainty that they were not cheating. But there are a few reasons I think these kinds of claims are overstated. I will avoid speculation and stick with what I know, then draw some conclusions as to what must mean in the context of this incident:
1) Stealing signals can only help the Patriots offense. Offensive coordinators communicate play calls through a radio in the quarterback's helmet. Only defensive calls are made with hand signals. If Ward was implying that the Patriots defenders knew their offensive playcalls, then camera-spying would not be the cause of this.
If he is implying that the Patriots offense knew the defensive calls, then it's a possibity. In 2001, the Patriots offense scored one touchdown and one field goal. So while they may have had an edge from stealing signals, it was likely not a game-altering advantage as Ward has implied.
2) Defensive players can adjust their playcalls on the field after the signals have been sent. So while there is certainly some value in stealing defensive signals, it is not guaranteed the signal correctly indicates the play. That lack of a guarantee also makes it unlikely that the game was altered in a grand way.
3) Since stealing signs can be done without breaking the rules, most teams have measures to protect themselves against it. This ESPN article tells us two things worth noting. First, some teams send dummy signals and/or have multiple people give signals to disguise them. Second, at least one NFL GM (who attached his name to the quote) estimates the success rate of sign stealing to be about 2 out of 60.
This isn't defending the Patriots' actions. Just pointing out that the competitive edge potentially gained here does not translate to a definite change in the outcome of the game. So all this talk sounds like sour grapes to me.
Which brings us to the logical question--if there's no significant advantage to be gained, why risk it? Examining what makes the most sense--as this blog has done--I tend to think that it's because NFL coaches are so hypercompetitive, and the financial resources are so vast, that gaining any small potential edge is worth attempting.
And as for why the Patriots were so careless in allowing themselves to get caught, I tend to agree with the Herald Blog: it's likely that they incorrectly (and arrogantly) assumed that there was no danger in getting caught. After all, we know that this Patriots cameraman was caught and escorted off the field during last year's Green Bay game, but no complaint was filed with the league. The Detroit Lions reportedly caught the same cameraman, but also did not file a complaint. CBS sports analyst Charlie Casserly also made a report last year that a complaint had been filed in another instance, but the Patriots were simply given a warning.
I can conclude that the Patriots were arrogant in assuming there was little risk, because they were clearly warned once. And since neither Detroit nor Green Bay filed a complaint (and both lost their games to the Patriots), I suspect that the act of stealing signs (and breaking the rules to do it) is not particularly uncommon (nor unaccepted) amongst NFL teams.
OK, so I cheated and ended up speculating with that last paragraph. But it's not like I'm the only one who cheats, right? (wink)
Steelers WR Hines Ward claims that in the 2001 and 2004 AFC championship games, "They knew a lot of our calls. There’s no question some of their players were calling out some of our stuff."
And some Eagles implied that some weird stuff happened in Super Bowl XXXIX.
Bullshit. I hate that the door is open for other people to try and take away the excitement of those championships. And it's my opinion that Ward in particular knows what he's saying is crap, but understands that he has an opportunity to stick it to the Pats in their weakened state.
Unfortunately, I can no longer defend the Pats' credibility, nor can I state with any certainty that they were not cheating. But there are a few reasons I think these kinds of claims are overstated. I will avoid speculation and stick with what I know, then draw some conclusions as to what must mean in the context of this incident:
1) Stealing signals can only help the Patriots offense. Offensive coordinators communicate play calls through a radio in the quarterback's helmet. Only defensive calls are made with hand signals. If Ward was implying that the Patriots defenders knew their offensive playcalls, then camera-spying would not be the cause of this.
If he is implying that the Patriots offense knew the defensive calls, then it's a possibity. In 2001, the Patriots offense scored one touchdown and one field goal. So while they may have had an edge from stealing signals, it was likely not a game-altering advantage as Ward has implied.
2) Defensive players can adjust their playcalls on the field after the signals have been sent. So while there is certainly some value in stealing defensive signals, it is not guaranteed the signal correctly indicates the play. That lack of a guarantee also makes it unlikely that the game was altered in a grand way.
3) Since stealing signs can be done without breaking the rules, most teams have measures to protect themselves against it. This ESPN article tells us two things worth noting. First, some teams send dummy signals and/or have multiple people give signals to disguise them. Second, at least one NFL GM (who attached his name to the quote) estimates the success rate of sign stealing to be about 2 out of 60.
This isn't defending the Patriots' actions. Just pointing out that the competitive edge potentially gained here does not translate to a definite change in the outcome of the game. So all this talk sounds like sour grapes to me.
Which brings us to the logical question--if there's no significant advantage to be gained, why risk it? Examining what makes the most sense--as this blog has done--I tend to think that it's because NFL coaches are so hypercompetitive, and the financial resources are so vast, that gaining any small potential edge is worth attempting.
And as for why the Patriots were so careless in allowing themselves to get caught, I tend to agree with the Herald Blog: it's likely that they incorrectly (and arrogantly) assumed that there was no danger in getting caught. After all, we know that this Patriots cameraman was caught and escorted off the field during last year's Green Bay game, but no complaint was filed with the league. The Detroit Lions reportedly caught the same cameraman, but also did not file a complaint. CBS sports analyst Charlie Casserly also made a report last year that a complaint had been filed in another instance, but the Patriots were simply given a warning.
I can conclude that the Patriots were arrogant in assuming there was little risk, because they were clearly warned once. And since neither Detroit nor Green Bay filed a complaint (and both lost their games to the Patriots), I suspect that the act of stealing signs (and breaking the rules to do it) is not particularly uncommon (nor unaccepted) amongst NFL teams.
OK, so I cheated and ended up speculating with that last paragraph. But it's not like I'm the only one who cheats, right? (wink)
